Yeah, I'll believe you, pulling the numbers out of your butt, instead of the guy actually maintaining the code.

Your condescendence level is over 9000.

I'm replying to a new, green account, immediately raising suspicion. Secondly, we're both random internet strangers. Why believe one person over another based on two easily falsified claims? In this discourse my experience should be as valid as any other.

I would agree with the sentiment of the commenter though. Software bugs in proprietary software are real, but LLMs tend to overstate their criticality, and/or inside knowledge is at times needed to exploit those.

We've sure seen that LLMs can make good assumptions about blackboxes and, unlike humans, are able to try many paths in a short time. However, one can't neglect that doomsday prayers have been present before the dawn of AI, and rarely companies got hacked.

From anecdata, the human is still most often the culprit for breaches, not the "We managed to penetrate that one byte often enough" exploit.

Not only that, their "fixes" tend to break things

Please don't attack others on HN, no matter how right you are or feel you are. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Make sure you’re still thinking.

Please avoid patronizing barbs in comments on HN. I can believe you didn't intend to be mean, but it's easy for these things to be misinterpreted on a text-only message board. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You are right of course, for posterity I didn’t intend this as a ‘patronising barb’. It’s more intended as general advice, which readers can agree or disagree with.

Do you have any evidence for the 0.5%.

It's the number from the article in the post.