[JohnLeitch]

What are you even trying to say? I suppose I'll clarify for you: Yes, I'm confident I could have identified the cause of the mysterious packets quickly. No, I'm not going to go through the motions because I have no particular inclination toward the work outside of banter on the internet. And what's more, it would be contrived since the answer has already shared.

[stackghost]

I think the point they're making is that "I, a seasoned network security and red-team-type person, could have done this in Wireshark without AI assistance" is neither surprising nor interesting.

That'd be like saying "I, an emergency room doctor, do not need AI assistance to interpret an EKG"

Consider that your expertise is atypical.

[JohnLeitch]

Sure, but that is aside from my original point. If somebody:

a) Has the knowledge to run tcpdump or similar from the command line

b) Has the ambition to document and publish their effort on the internet

c) Has the ability identify and patch the target behaviors in code

I argue that, had they not run to an LLM, they likely would have solved this problem more efficiently, and would have learned more along the way. Forgive me for being so critical, but the LLM use here simply comes off as lazy. And not lazy in a good efficiency amplifying way, but lazy in a sloppy way. Ultimately this person achieved their goal, but this is a pattern I am seeing on a daily basis at this point, and I worry that heavy LLM users will see their skill sets stagnate and likely atrophy.

[MrDarcy]

The specific point I was trying to make was along the lines of, "I, a seasoned network security and red-team-type person, could have done this in Wireshark without AI assistance. And yet, I’d probably lose a bet on a race against someone like me using an LLM."