Well, I spent a good part of my career reverse engineering network protocols for the purpose of developing exploits against closed source software, so I'm pretty sure I could do this quickly. Not that it matters unless you're going to pay me.
That'd be like saying "I, an emergency room doctor, do not need AI assistance to interpret an EKG"
Consider that your expertise is atypical.
a) Has the knowledge to run tcpdump or similar from the command line
b) Has the ambition to document and publish their effort on the internet
c) Has the ability identify and patch the target behaviors in code
I argue that, had they not run to an LLM, they likely would have solved this problem more efficiently, and would have learned more along the way. Forgive me for being so critical, but the LLM use here simply comes off as lazy. And not lazy in a good efficiency amplifying way, but lazy in a sloppy way. Ultimately this person achieved their goal, but this is a pattern I am seeing on a daily basis at this point, and I worry that heavy LLM users will see their skill sets stagnate and likely atrophy.
Hard disagree. Asking an LLM is 1000% more efficient than reading docs, lots of which are poorly written and thus dense and time-consuming to wade through.
The same stuff happens when summarizing documentation. In that regard, I would say that, at best, modern LLMs are only good for finding an entrypoint into the docs.
Why I think I’d win the bet is I’m proficient with tcpdump and wireshark and I’m reasonably confident that running to a frontier model and dealing with any hallucinations is more efficient and faster than recalling the incantantions and parsing the output myself.
This is just expert blindness, and objectively, measurably wrong.