HackerOne is reporting that they are "pausing submissions" in response to AI putting vulnerability reporting in the express lane, which in turn is overwhelming the recipients' abilities to parse through and fix them. As examples, InfoWorld notes that Curl said they were not participating in the bug bounty program anymore back in January due to a deluge of reports, and Google also stopped accepting AI reports in March.
This is a bit of a contradicting statement as both what you are saying and, the quote/screenshot you have in the comment are about whats to come and not the reality. So oddly enough this has just as much of a chance of being paranoia etc as it does reality.
yes but you did use the word “reality” and then avoided the contradiction. I am not sure why your refusing to accept that there is an inherent contradiction in claiming this is reality when you are not speaking about something that has actually happened yet ie reality.
I guess its just a sign of our times that people refuse to even acknowledge their own contradictions.
The thing is, you’re calling something a contradiction when it isn’t, because living in the present is one thing, and the future is another. Of course, I agree that living in the present is common sense, but to call the future a “paranoid” reality—a contradiction according to your argument—is like saying that future children are immune to and invisible to technology. How much more so, then, when it comes to privacy and security.
Why is it that young people have always been drawn to technology, and who knows if it’s happening exactly the same way today—or less, or more?
That’s why I agree with that person’s comment; they’re right.
And if that weren’t enough, I’m at peace with it, and it’s good for people to know.
Calling future risks ‘reality’ doesn’t make them facts — it makes you a fortune-teller with anxiety. If you want to warn people, say ‘possible’ or ‘plausible’ and explain the evidence; otherwise you’re just selling conjecture as certainty. Here on PG we frown upon people who try to claim FUD as facts.
I read the article and there are valid points showing current strain from AI-driven reports. My issue is with calling future risks ‘reality’ like you’re handing out prophecies. I’m not denying there’s a risk — I’m saying don’t dress speculation up as reality.
Saying ‘plausible’ or ‘likely given current trends’ and briefly summarizing the evidence (e.g., the surge in low-quality automated reports overwhelming triage teams) will be clearer and harder to dismiss.
I’m calm. Did you want proof? There you go. And so as not to derail the topic of this post, I’ll end our conversation here.
It doesn’t add anything to the discussion.
