> I reported this issue privately through the project’s responsible-disclosure process. The underlying configuration has since been patched, so I’m publishing the details now to explain what the issue is and let users know to update their systems.
Nothing beats the feeling of having a proposed idea dismissed just to have the higher ups “come up” with it some time later. Don’t even dream about getting a footnote mention.
That’s the passive form of the experience, sure — and it often comes as a shock to people that this is a thing in human relations. If you set out to make it happen, and you don’t mind letting someone else execute on the idea, it can be quite fun to manipulate people into an epiphany you arranged for them. (See also teaching, coaching, et al. but with a flipped power differential.)
I think you are assuming that people use AI to communicate with others because they don’t want to hurt their feelings: it’s likely hardly the case. The article here is just virtue signalling corporate version. Just tell the person doing it not to send you messages produced by AI directly and candidly. It’s clear you are not afraid of “hurting their feelings”.
It’s rather weak to need a website to speak for you but maybe I’m wrong.
reply