Don't know what you're talking about, the article is good. Yes, they used ai, but this is what ai SHOULD be used for. AI should be used for either very small projects that nobody wants to do or very extreme missions that could take months.

It's the writing style of AI. It's quite problematic for a lot of people.

I often really want to read articles, but the minute is encounter claude-speak, I (a) either leave (90%+ of the time) or (b) ask another AI to rewrite it using simple english or in a style of another writer in that space (yes, I know, it's ironical).

Just hard to read AI-ism.

The load bearing fact is it's not the content, or the originality, or the perceived lack of effort, it's reading the same trope for the 10000th time, and experiencing something akin to ad-blindness.

The issue isn't with using AI for finding an exploit, it's with using an AI to write up the article for human consumption about it.

> it's with using an AI to write up the article for human consumption about it.

Nothing wrong with it, as soon as it is not obviously AI-generated looking and has good, high quality content.

Taste is subjective of course, but when 80% (or whatever) of your potential audience dislikes something perhaps you should just accept that it's a bad idea.

Thing is, using ML they can make more than 5 times as many articles. And I suspect those who don't object to wasting more time on an article because it was produced in a protracted way probably clock through on ads more. So annoying 80% of people might still get them more revenue in the end.

That is a fair point - hopefully there won't be any hard feelings when the 80% attempt to censor such slop from their platforms of choice. Taste is subjective and I come to HN for things that taste good. (Notably this leaves the door wide open for AI authored content with a decent tone.)

And here I think you are just making up numbers.

I’m not claiming it’s good/bad one way or the other, but it’s the reality in which we live.

I’m just saying it’s weird to call AI okay for some things, like finding the exploit, but using that same AI is somehow the line in the sand when it comes to the documentation

The writing style was boring I also stopped reading halfway through esp after I read that a similar tablet had already been rooted in the past and documented online using the same exploit the AI successfully used

I'll be honest, who fucking cares? Why would you use AI to write for you and then complain that people know AI wrote the code?? If you know people wouldn't like it, why even try!?