I wouldn't be surprised either. But the original formatting of the worm makes me think it was human written, or maybe AI assisted, but not 100% AI. It has a lot of unusual stylistic choices that I don't believe an AI would intentionally output.
reply> It has a lot of unusual stylistic choices that I don't believe an AI would intentionally output.
replyIndeed. One of those unusual choices is that it uses jQuery. Gotta have IE6 compatibility in your worm!
I'm not sure what to make of `Number("20")` in the source code. I would think it's some way to get around some filter intended to discourage CPU-intensive looping, but I don't think user scripts have any form of automated moderation, and if that were the case it doesn't make sense that they would allow a `for` loop in the first place.
jQuery is still sooo much easier to use than React and whatever other messes modern frameworks have created. As a bonus, you don't have to npm build your JS project, you just double click and it opens and works without any build step, which is how interpreted languages were intended to be.
replyI would. AI designed software in general does not include novel ideas. And this is the kind of novel software AI is not great at, because there's not much training data.
replyOf course it's very possible someone wrote it with AI help. But almost no chance it was designed by AI.
Turns out it's a pretty rudimentary XSS worm from 2023. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail; if all you have is a LLM, everything looks like slop?
replyI mean....elaborate is a stretch.
reply