When you make an outrageous claim the burden of proof is on the claimant. Given that there isn't a real indication of anything to the contrary, it is reasonable to assume reality is still the way it always was and humans are too.
Calling it that makes you instantly recognisable as someone who is corporate to a problematic degree. I guess it is somewhat good to be upfront about it, but I think praise is taking it too far.
The fight itself definitely would not be stupid, because words have meaning and by letting marketeers corrupt them we let them make all of society worse. The real tragedy here is that you think linguistic drift for a proximate profit motive is acceptable.
You make so many outlandish claims and outrageous statements - Oss libraries being entirely ai, you can trivially replace any Oss library with agent output, etc. It really distracts from your core question (which has a premise that doesn't seem reasonable)
Even before the advent of AI the quality of most reports was depressingly low. Most of your reports will quite simply come from folks in lower-wage countries that broadly don't speak English well and that use a shotgun approach to bug bounties. That means you are receiving a lot of them, they will be hard to read (assuming the information you need is in there at all) and if they get one success out of fifty then for them it is a really good return.
The advent of LLMs has made this a hundred times worse. Both because it makes it easier for most people to create reports that sound good (and so are more effort to dissect) and because people who didn't have to work hard to get any amount of competence are usually more entitled and more rude (the stakes are even lower for them).
It is economically no longer a good idea to run a bug bounty program at all. I honestly question whether or not even having a direct input for such things makes any sense anymore. The volume is becoming so great you need a classical spam filter to plow through it. But that won't work, because they all sound reasonable.
I've run a bug bounty program for a relatively large corporation and you are exactly right. It's worse in open source, because none of the developers owe a researcher their time. At least in a bug bounty program you've communicated willingness both ways already
The coreutils rewrite was shit because of the license change. Most of the other founding ideas were also bad as you say, but the license change was absolutely a much worse signal. Just a bunch of people rolling over and showing big corps their belly. And for what? So they can be more exploited by people that treat them like cattle.
It's a common llm-ism. It makes clear this person is capable of speaking english without chatgpt and makes a case that the chatgpt voice patterns are in fact as claimed by GP evidence of a lack of original thought.
The third party is never trustworthy. Such a system is the death of all things good in effect - it makes a single party very attractive to compromise. Compromise is so easy in practice that imagining a group of people is preventing it at any kind of scale is purely magical thinking.
It's kind of hilarious that saying "maybe he wasn't capable of reading comprehension" is supposed to be some sort of reasonable basis to have taken another unforgivable action on.
I think the fact that you can claim this without any apparent sarcasm means you operate in a very specific part of society most people aren't a part of.
While what GP said was not worded how the site rules say it should be, your original point is very tedious and can only be read charitably if we assume you never read any news or barely retain anything. We are currently on a news website. I think if you want non-commenting readers to see your point and have charitable thoughts of you it would help to explain why you're ignoring reality for whatever it is you are positing (consumer protections because of subscriptions? really? for this corporation?).
What you're saying in this post essentially just underlines GPs point, which I imagine isn't what you're trying to communicate. You have to help a reader understand your point of view, especially if it's far removed from objective reality (which is that a corporate entity will betray you for money, regardless of whether that makes sense long-term).
Even Anthropic consistently says their own AI can't help with meaningful work in their own corporation. Any person that tells you it can is overhyping it. Probably to sell you something.
My point is that you can ignore every article about ai being super good as long as you see the vendor research (that you read once a year or less) is still the same. It saves everyone a lot of frustration. As for why it keeps appearing here, people like being excited. It's not about the truth, so asking for it is missing the point.
see "How much work can be fully delegated to Claude?": "Although engineers use Claude frequently, more than half said they can “fully delegate” only between 0-20% of their work to Claude"
There won't be anything like you're asking for, even the vendors themselves (they'll be the most positive and most enthousiastic about using it) can't do this with them.