pull down to refresh
I think you are making me more aware of the awfulness of slop than I used to be. I have been somewhat relaxed about it as long as people are trying to convey interesting information, but it is sad to see so many people willing to post un-edited slop.
I suppose I could write my own posts that summarize theirs without the ai voice, but often these things are on the edge of my technical understanding and I'm loathe to get details wrong.
The slop world is sad.
Part of it is understandable. "If the results are correct, does it matter how it's voiced?"
But I was talking to a friend who is a research lead at a biotech company and he says he tells people to go back and rewrite if it sounds too much like AI. He said that it's an actual quality issue, because although the AI might be accurate, it's not good. It doesn't convey the important information efficiently or effectively. That made a lot of sense.
I think that you're right to complain because I feel like this too (though not to @Scoresby per se as in not shooting the messenger.)
The main issue I have with much of the researchers (security or otherwise and with, or without quotes, there's not much difference) nowadays: I don't want to read someone else's slop. I didn't prompt for it. Slop is only acceptable as a direct result of me asking for it. So instead of reading all that and then still having to verify everything, just describe the process in 4 bullet points and I will prompt my own bots, get actual verifiable results within my own systems and a tailored-to-me-slop report that I actually will read. And if the outcome is not reproducible then I cannot accept it as true anyway.
So you're right. I recommend sharing the prompts, the process and the outcome as a oneliner. And done.
And sorry, I know I've been pointing out "sounds like AI" in a lot of your posts, which I think is because you're linking to a lot of high value security related posts, and security researchers have no problem letting AI write up their (legitimate) results for them.