zlacker

>>xmrcat+(OP)
The first thing I have to point out is that this entire article is clearly LLM-generated from start to finish.

The second thing I have to point out is that bug bounty programs are inundated with garbage from people who don't know anything about programming and just blindly trust whatever the LLM says. We even have the 'author' reproducing this blind reinforcement in the article: "Tested Jan 2026. Confirmed working."

The third thing I have to point out is that the response from Valve is not actually shown. We, the reader, are treated to an LLM-generated paraphrasal of something they may or may not have actually said.

Is it possible this issue is real and that Valve responded the way they did? Perhaps, but the article alone leaves me extremely skeptical based on past experiences with LLM-generated bug bounty reports.

>>anonym+96
Stop worrying about whether articles are written by LLM or not and judge them by their content or provenance to sources that you can justifiably trust. If you weren't doing that before LLMs then you were getting fooled by humans writing incompetent or deceptive articles too. People have good reasons for using LLMs to write for them. If they wrote it themselves, it might cause you to judge them as being a teenager, uneducated, foreign, or whatever other unreliable proxies you use for trust.

You point about Valve's response is valid though.