The issue isn't with using AI for finding an exploit, it's with using an AI to write up the article for human consumption about it.

▲

BoredomIsFun an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> it's with using an AI to write up the article for human consumption about it.

Nothing wrong with it, as soon as it is not obviously AI-generated looking and has good, high quality content.

▲

k_roy an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Seems kind of subjective innit?

▲

fc417fc802 an hour ago | parent [-]

Taste is subjective of course, but when 80% (or whatever) of your potential audience dislikes something perhaps you should just accept that it's a bad idea.

▲

pbhjpbhj an hour ago | parent [-]

Thing is, using ML they can make more than 5 times as many articles. And I suspect those who don't object to wasting more time on an article because it was produced in a protracted way probably clock through on ads more. So annoying 80% of people might still get them more revenue in the end.

	▲	fc417fc802 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That is a fair point - hopefully there won't be any hard feelings when the 80% attempt to censor such slop from their platforms of choice. Taste is subjective and I come to HN for things that taste good. (Notably this leaves the door wide open for AI authored content with a decent tone.)