10
Mapping to
(discuss.tchncs.de)
I agree that the wording is a bit ambiguous, I interpreted it the way it seems more natural to me. In the post by the researcher(s) themselves, it says in the tldr paragraph that the "agent produces concrete, reproducible PoC inputs to confirm its findings" but also that they (probably humans) "explored the exploitability of the issues and developed a PoC demonstrating a RCE exploit primitive". Apparently it finds the vulnerabilities very concretely but humans were involved for the full-blown exploit. It also doesn't say much about the number of false-positives.
I'm not in the business, so I can't tell how much of the work such agents are actually saving. Since the articles don't say much about the amount of human involvement, the imagination conveyed by them probably depends strongly on the (knowledge of the) reader. But in my opinion it is a bit of stretch to say this is downplaying it. It should be noted though, that the article probably sources its information from a post by the company selling that AI.
With that information, the "without any confidence" and "area of interest" parts of your previous post still seem misleading.
If this was done by trustworthy organizations as an effort to digitize and preserve all the books, I would appreciate it. Maybe an association of libraries should do that and, to get the cost back, sell the digital versions / ebooks to the AI companies for an additional price). Then, at least, we would not loose the contents of those rare books to the AI conpanies and prevent them from obtaining a monopoly on the data. And each book would only get destroyed once.
But libraries/bookshops are probably not allowed to sell digital versions, and AI companies are not allowed to use borrowed ebooks.