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.
Is your LLM detector on a hairtrigger? At best the headings seem like LLM, but the rest don't look LLM generated.
- "This isn't just a "status" bug. It's a behavioral tracker."
- "It essentially xxxxx, making yyyyyy."
- As you mentioned, the headings
- A lack of compound sentences that don't use "x, but y" format.
This is clearly LLM generated text, maybe just lightly edited to remove some em dashes and stuff like that.
After you read code for a while, you start to figure out the "smell" of who wrote what code. It's the same for any other writing. I was literally reading a New Yorker article before this, and this is the first HN article I just opened today; the writing difference is jarring. It's very easy to smell LLM generated text after reading a few non-LLM articles.
That can said, I do think it would be better to be up front about this sort of thing, and that means that it's not really suitable for use on a site like HN where it's against the rules.
But agreed, to me the primary concern is that there's no disclosure, so it's impossible to know if you're talking to a human using an LLM translator, or just wasting your time talking to an LLM.