How do you know? Some of the text has a slightly LLM-ish flavour to it (e.g. the numbered lists) but other than that I don’t see any solid evidence of that

Edit: I looked into it a bit and things seems to check out, this person has scuba diving certifications on their LinkedIn and the site seems real and high-effort. While I also don’t have solid proof that it’s not AI generated either, making accusations like this based on no evidence doesn’t seem good at all

HN's comment section new favourite sport, trying to guess if an article was generated by LLM. It's completely pointless. Why not focus on what's being said instead?

You know I had a thoughtful comment written in response to this that wouldn’t post because your comment got flagged to death when I tried to submit it!

Your firebrand attitude is doing a disservice to everyone who takes vibe hunting vibecraft seriously!

The intended audience doesn’t even care that this is LLM-assisted writing. Whether the narrative is affected by AI is second to the technical details. This is technical documentation communicated through a narrative, not personal narrative about someone’s experience with a technical problem. There’s a difference!

What are you in this for?!

> contains no real substance.

The same could be said of the accusation being levied here.

What is the evidence that the content is entirely LLM generated, rather just LLM-assisted writing of a genuine story?

[flagged]

Proof?

Can you share how you confirmed this is LLM generated? I review vulnerability reports submitting by the general public and it seems very plausible based on my experience (as someone who both reviews reports and has submitted them), hence why I submitted it. I am also very allergic to AI slop and did not get the slop vibe, nor would I knowingly submit slop posts.

I assure you, the incompetence in both securing systems and operating these vulnerability management systems and programs is everywhere. You don't need an LLM to make it up.

(my experience is roughly a decade in cybersecurity and risk management, ymmv)

I'm very sensitive to this but disagree vehemently.

I saw one or two sigils (ex. a little eager to jump to lists)

It certainly has real substance and detail.

It's not, like, generic LinkedIn post quality.

You could tl;dr it to "autoincrementing user ids and a default password set = vulnerability, and the company responded poorly." and react as "Jeez, what a waste of time, I've heard 1000 of these stories."

I don't think that reaction is wrong, per se, and I understand the impulse. I feel this sort of thing more and more as I get older.

But, it fitting into a condensed structure you're familiar with isn't the same as "this is boring slop." Moby Dick is a book about some guy who wants revenge, Hamlet is about a king who dies.

Additionally, I don't think what people will interpret from what you wrote is what you meant, necessarily. Note the other reply at this time, you're so confident and dismissive that they assume you're indicating the article should be removed from HN.