> The operational tempo achieved proves the use of an autonomous model rather than interactive assistance. Peak activity included thousands of requests, representing sustained request rates of multiple operations per second.

The assumption that no human could ever (program a computer to) do multiple things per second, nor have their code do different things depending on the result of the previous request is... interesting.

(observation is not original to me, it was someone on Twitter who pointed it out)

Great point, it might be just pure ignorance. Even OSS pentesting tooling such as metasploitable have great capabilities. I see how LLM could be leveraged to build custom modules on top of those tools or how can you add basic LLM “decision” making, but this is just another additive tool in the chain.

There is absolutely no way a technical person would mix those up

Right! It's well known that technical people never make mistakes.

I think the expectation is more that serious people have their work checked over by other serious people to catch the obvious mistakes.

Every time you have your work "checked over by other serious people", it eliminates 90% of the mistakes. So you have it checked over twice so that 99% of mistakes have been eliminated, and so on. But it never gets to 0% mistakes. That's my experience anyway.

Serious people like to look at things through a magnifying glass. Which makes them miss a lot.

I've seen printed books checked by paid professionals that consisted a "replace all" populated without context. Creating a grammar error on every single page. Or ones where everyone just forgot to add page numbers. Or a large cook book where index and page numbers didn't mach, making it almost impossible to navigate.

I'm talking of pre-AI work, with publisher. Apparently it wasn't obvious for them.

But what about an ML person roped into writing an AI assisted blogpost about security