Hacker News Reader

Already happend: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.08708

more like some bugs are shallow and others are pieced together false-positives from an automated tool reliable in its unreliability.

..and three months to review the false positives

this is always overlooked. AI stories sound like "with right attitude, you too can win 10M $ in lottery, like this man just did"

Running LLM on 1000 functions produces 10000 reports (these numbers are accurate because I just generated them) — of course only the lottery winners who pulled the actually correct report from the bag will write an article in Evening Post

> these numbers are accurate because I just generated them

Is it sarcasm, or you really did this? Claude Opus 4.6?