[lolinder]

The reason why the HN guidelines discourage modifying the title is because it's too easy to accidentally misrepresent the content of the article. This is the actual conclusion, which is interesting, but not accurately captured in the modified title:

> The in-lab study results showed that developers using a poisoned ChatGPT-like tool were more prone to including insecure code than those using an IntelliCode-like tool or no tool.

Looking at the actual paper, the results suggest that developers miss security holes in fully generated blocks of code more frequently than they do with code that an AI completes, and both versions of AI tooling seem to have increased error rates relative to no tool in this very small study (10 devs per category).

Those results bear almost no relation to the submitted title's claim that developers don't care about poisoning attacks.