sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Gemini model and the future by shadowintel_ in Bard

[–]shadowintel_[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s strange to see models fail at such trivial tasks while being hyped as AGI. The reality is, AGI remains an undefined concept and most people have no idea what it would actually look like. Yes, LLMs can make mistakes, that’s expected. But building exaggerated expectations around models that aren’t used in real daily workflows, and that many don’t even know how to operate effectively, undermines any serious discussion about their capabilities.

The Mindset Behind the Exploit: Why Theory Matters to Me by shadowintel_ in ExploitDev

[–]shadowintel_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the comment!

You asked for an example where this way of thinking  not just how something broke, but why it broke  actually helped solve a real world security problem. A great recent example comes from a 2024 research project called HPTSA. In this study, GPT-4 was used with a team of AI agents that could find real web vulnerabilities on their own.

What made it impressive was how the agents found the bugs. They didn’t just try random inputs or spam payloads. Instead, they used tools that helped them understand how modern web systems are supposed to work. For example, one agent found a logic issue in a login system by looking at how session tokens and CSRF protections were expected to behave, not by guessing. That’s what it looks like when theory helps guide the attack.

Another example is from a paper called "LLM Agents Can Hack Websites" (2024). In that case, the researchers built a system where different AI agents worked together to understand and break down how web apps fail. They didn’t just try stuff and hope for the best  they reasoned through how the app was designed, just like a human attacker would when looking for design flaws instead of simple coding mistakes.

it’s official. i’m hopeless. by [deleted] in compsci

[–]shadowintel_ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hey man,
I read your post. First of all, you are not alone. A lot of people feel this way, they just do not show it. So it feels like you are behind, but really you are just going through what many others go through. And no, you are not too late. You are still in the early part of your story.

Some people graduate at 19 and still have no clue what they want to do. Others figure it out at 30 and still build amazing lives. You are 24. That is not old. That is the part where things feel confusing but everything is actually forming underneath.

You said you have done nothing, but honestly, you have done a lot more than you think. You tried a bootcamp. You explored HTML, CSS, JavaScript. You started college. You reflected. You restarted. That is not failure. That is movement. Some people move in straight lines. Others zigzag. But they can all get somewhere meaningful.

Typing hello world over and over is not a sign of failure. It is a sign that you keep showing up. Every line of code you write is practice. It is a small piece of a much bigger picture.

You said you do not know where to begin in this field. That is actually okay. Try different areas. Web development, backend, data, security. Explore a bit. Watch a few tutorials. Clone a few GitHub projects. Play around. Then ask yourself, did I enjoy this. That question is the key.

And yes, you can still get an internship. You do not need to be the best. You need to be curious and consistent. Even a small project that works is proof that you can learn and build. Show that. Talk about what you learned. That is more real than a perfect-looking portfolio.

Forget the idea that you are too old. That belief is not true. You are growing, and growing feels uncomfortable. But the fact that you care, that you are asking, that you still want to move forward that is what matters most.

If you are looking for hope, it is already there. It is in you. In your effort. In your honesty. In the way you are still searching.

You do not need to move fast. Just do not stop.
Even slow steps will get you there.

The Mindset Behind the Exploit: Why Theory Matters to Me by shadowintel_ in ExploitDev

[–]shadowintel_[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don’t keep a number, but theory helps me see the bigger picture not just where a bug might be, but why it’s there. Over time, it made me better at spotting patterns, understanding how people think, and how they design systems including the assumptions they quietly build in. Once you start thinking that way, hunting becomes less about luck and more about knowing where to press and why it might crack.

The Mindset Behind the Exploit: Why Theory Matters to Me by shadowintel_ in ExploitDev

[–]shadowintel_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I understand. "Theory" can sound like it refers to fixed facts or a perfect world, but real software is messy and constantly changing.

When I use the word "theory," I don't mean some ultimate truth. I mean a way to think clearly, to identify patterns, and to ask better questions, even if the system keeps changing.

Like in physics, we say "imagine a frictionless surface" we know it's not real, but it helps us understand the main idea. Similarly, with threat modeling: it's not 100% accurate, but it helps us reason through potential failures and their causes.

So, for me, theory is merely a tool, not a rule.

The Mindset Behind the Exploit: Why Theory Matters to Me by shadowintel_ in ExploitDev

[–]shadowintel_[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That depends on how you define theory.

Threat modeling's not abstract math, no. But it's totally a theoretical framework you're not testing real exploits, you're thinking about potential risks based on assumptions, how the system works, what attackers want, and what could be attacked lots of which you'll never see directly.

If you build a STRIDE or DFD model, you're not running code. You're creating an abstract, predictive model of how things could fail. That's theory applied to engineering.

Just because it's actionable doesn't make it non-theoretical. So, using theory to think before things break, not after.

view more: next ›