> This probably sounds like nonsense words or hysterical overreacting to most people, so here's what that means: "GLM" is a kind of LLM (AI) [...]

The post also sounds like that to people that understand the technology.

Calling that out like this and trying to pin that assessment to lack of knowledge is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, nor a good move.

__

Edit: Having spent some time letting the article marinate in my mind.

On the defending side, it is written that

> LLMs are good at writing patches, but not as one-off-prompts.

But this for me kinda conflicts with what is written on the attacking side:

> GLM 5.3-flash is so good at those tasks that human involvement in those tasks can be negligible. As a result, we are now in a world where cybersecurity attacks can be run in a for loop.

What is it? Can it be this autonomous terrifying entity or can it not be?

Yes, yes, attackers only need to win once, whereas defenders need to win every time, but that's not my point.

> What is it? Can it be this autonomous terrifying entity or can it not be?

the difference between attack and defense is that attacks can be throwaway code. it's much easier to let an llm hack out a prototype than to get it to build maintainable code that people want to read and review. it's not enough to get Daybreak or Mythos to write you a patch, you need the author of the project to accept and merge it.