this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2026
122 points (85.1% liked)
Technology
85243 readers
4168 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's states they were produced which I'm taking to mean found and it's ambigously worded so it's unclear if the article is actually claiming it generated PoC for all of them. It doesn't say how many if any hallucinated results were produced or how much effort was needed to fully confirm, basically down played the human involvement.
It's great that so many bugs are being found and squashed but it's implied LLMs are doing all the work when what they are actually doing is assisting as a tool.
I agree that the wording is a bit ambiguous, I interpreted it the way it seems more natural to me. In the post by the researcher(s) themselves, it says in the tldr paragraph that the "agent produces concrete, reproducible PoC inputs to confirm its findings" but also that they (probably humans) "explored the exploitability of the issues and developed a PoC demonstrating a RCE exploit primitive". Apparently it finds the vulnerabilities very concretely but humans were involved for the full-blown exploit. It also doesn't say much about the number of false-positives.
I'm not in the business, so I can't tell how much of the work such agents are actually saving. Since the articles don't say much about the amount of human involvement, the imagination conveyed by them probably depends strongly on the (knowledge of the) reader. But in my opinion it is a bit of stretch to say this is downplaying it. It should be noted though, that the article probably sources its information from a post by the company selling that AI.
With that information, the "without any confidence" and "area of interest" parts of your previous post still seem misleading.