9 ms·

The "critique" is nuts. Surely AI generated. If I didn't trust the domain, I'd assume the author to be incredible for seriously referencing something like this.

The "critique" is nuts. Surely AI generated. If I didn't trust the domain, I'd assume the author to be incredible for seriously referencing something like this. Look at the critique [0] and then look at the code [1]. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20250423135719/https://github.com/markoelez/async-ip-rotator/issues/1 https://web.archive.org/web/20250423135719/https://github.co... [1] https://github.com/ricci/async-ip-rotator/blob/master/src/async_ip_rotator/__init__.py https://github.com/ricci/async-ip-rotator/blob/master/src/as...

krferriter 1y ago
Lol that's so funny. Can't imagine writing that. (the critique, not the code).
captainkrtek 1y ago
Yea clearly AI with the keyword bolding, numbered arguments, and so on. Feel like lots of AI produced content follow this structured response pattern.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  It's uses a simple, purpose-focused template of a type that is a common recommendation for clear communication, outline numbering, and highlights keywords using monospaced text, as is common practice in technical writing. None of that is unusual for a human, especially writing something that they know is going to be high visibility, to do. Modestly competent presentation is now getting portrayed as an "AI tell".
  - captainkrtek 1y ago
    I’m not arguing that it’s unusual for humans to write in this manner, but when you use something like chatgpt with some frequency and see that as a common response template it’s an obvious pattern..
    - drusepth 1y ago
      People say emdashes are a signal that something's from chatgpt also — yet people forget that the cliches or patterns of LLMs are learned from real-world patterns. What is common in something like ChatGPT has a good chance to also be common outside of it, and _lots_ of false positives (and false negatives) are bound to creep up frequently when trying to do any sort of pattern-based "detection" here.
      - chongli 1y ago
        Yes, emdashes are inserted automatically by iOS when a user inputs a double dash: —
      - op00to 1y ago
        I’ve never encountered emdashes in emails from my colleagues before ChatGPT was available, and it’s obvious now where there are emdashes, the content is at least in part AI generated. Same with semicolons. Yes, proper grammar and syntax use semicolons but in most casual business communication those rules are modified for simplicity.
  - ahwelatif 1y ago
    I'm relatively confident this critique is AI-powered. The dead giveaways: 1. Verbosity. Developers are busy people and security researcher devs are busy even moreso. Someone so skilled wouldn't spend more than 2-3 sentences of time in critiquing this repo. 2. Hostility. Writing bug free code is hard, even impossible for most. Unless your name is Linus Torvalds, Richard Hipp, or maybe Dan Abramov, most devs are not comfortable throwing stones while knowing they live in glass houses. 3. Ownership. "Killshot" comments like this are only ever written by frustrated gatekeepers against weak PRs that would hurt "their baby". Nobody would get emotionally invested in other people's random utility projects. This is just a single python file here without much other context. 4. Author. The author is still an aspiring developer. See their starred repo highlighting adherence to SOLID/DRY principles as a primary feature of their project. Not something you'd expect to see from a seasoned security researcher. https://github.com/SSD1805/EchoFlow https://github.com/SSD1805/EchoFlow 5. Content. The critique is... wrong. It says the single file, utility repo is "awful" for being a "less maintainable" monolith. Hilariously, it calls the code bad because it does not need dependency injection. This was a top critique in the comment! -- Regardless of political persuasion, I hope this trend of using AI to cyberbully people you don't like goes away.
    - DonHopkins 1y ago
      I hope this trend of DOGE using the US Government to cyberbully people they don't like goes away.
    - paulgb 1y ago
      I agree on all counts. The readme of the repo you link also smacks of an AI generated summary of the codebase. (Frankly, I don’t think the AI was able to understand what the code in that repo does, which is my guess as to why it talked much about form rather than function.)
    - watwut 1y ago
      The point 2 makes me think you did not read what developers write on the internet, in particular in flame war, in particular when they have beef with whoever they argue with. Verbose hostility of that kind and throwing stones, even nitpicking with exaggerated outrage are no exception. And lack of experience never stopped people from feeling and behaving like god given gift to programming profession.
  - somenameforme 1y ago
    It has excellent presentation, excess verbosity, and is wholly nonsensical. Read the code. It uses excessive whitespace doing things like function calls/declarations with one parameter per line, and so it's probably like 100 lines "real" code of mostly tight functions -- the presentation/objections make no sense whatsoever. I was able to generate extremely comparable output from ChatGPT by telling it to create a hyper-negative review, engage in endless hyperbole, and focus on danger, threats, and the obvious inexperience of the person who wrote it. Such is the nature of LLMs it'd happily produce the similar sort of nonsense for even the cleanest and tightest code ever written. I'll just quote its conclusion because LLM verbosity is... verbose. --- Conclusion This code is a ticking time bomb of security vulnerabilities, AWS billing horrors, concurrency demons, and maintenance black holes. It would fail any professional code review: Security: Fails OWASP Top 10, opens SSRF, IP spoofing, credential leakage Reliability: Race conditions, silent failures, unbounded threading Maintainability: Spaghetti architecture, no documentation, magic literals Recommendation: Reject outright. Demolish and rewrite from scratch with proper layering, input validation, secure defaults, IAM roles, structured logging, and robust error handling. --- Oooo sick burn. /eyeroll
    - throwaway290 1y ago
      > I was able to generate extremely comparable output from ChatGPT by telling it Just to check, you know that ChatGPT is fully built on human writing right? Would it be ironic if I claim "what you write looks like what the tool can output, so you used the tool" if the tool was built to output stuff that looks like what you write. Fun fact: anything you or me write looks like ChatGPT too. It could be surprising if people didn't spend billions and stole truckloads of scraped unlicensed content including content created by you and me to get the tool to literally do just this.
  - odo1242 1y ago
    The format doesn’t itself indicate AI, but when combined with the fact that the critique is mostly nonsense it does appear to strongly suggest it.
  - Suppafly 1y ago
    >Modestly competent presentation is now getting portrayed as an "AI tell". This. Someone on a reddit gamedev sub the other day was showing where his game got review bombed because his own description of his game used good descriptions and bulleted lists. It seems like anytime a bulleted list is used now, people assume it's because of AI.

krferriter 1y ago

Lol that's so funny. Can't imagine writing that. (the critique, not the code).

captainkrtek 1y ago

Yea clearly AI with the keyword bolding, numbered arguments, and so on. Feel like lots of AI produced content follow this structured response pattern.

dragonwriter 1y ago
It's uses a simple, purpose-focused template of a type that is a common recommendation for clear communication, outline numbering, and highlights keywords using monospaced text, as is common practice in technical writing. None of that is unusual for a human, especially writing something that they know is going to be high visibility, to do. Modestly competent presentation is now getting portrayed as an "AI tell".
- captainkrtek 1y ago
  I’m not arguing that it’s unusual for humans to write in this manner, but when you use something like chatgpt with some frequency and see that as a common response template it’s an obvious pattern..
  - drusepth 1y ago
    People say emdashes are a signal that something's from chatgpt also — yet people forget that the cliches or patterns of LLMs are learned from real-world patterns. What is common in something like ChatGPT has a good chance to also be common outside of it, and _lots_ of false positives (and false negatives) are bound to creep up frequently when trying to do any sort of pattern-based "detection" here.
    - chongli 1y ago
      Yes, emdashes are inserted automatically by iOS when a user inputs a double dash: —
    - op00to 1y ago
      I’ve never encountered emdashes in emails from my colleagues before ChatGPT was available, and it’s obvious now where there are emdashes, the content is at least in part AI generated. Same with semicolons. Yes, proper grammar and syntax use semicolons but in most casual business communication those rules are modified for simplicity.
- ahwelatif 1y ago
  I'm relatively confident this critique is AI-powered. The dead giveaways: 1. Verbosity. Developers are busy people and security researcher devs are busy even moreso. Someone so skilled wouldn't spend more than 2-3 sentences of time in critiquing this repo. 2. Hostility. Writing bug free code is hard, even impossible for most. Unless your name is Linus Torvalds, Richard Hipp, or maybe Dan Abramov, most devs are not comfortable throwing stones while knowing they live in glass houses. 3. Ownership. "Killshot" comments like this are only ever written by frustrated gatekeepers against weak PRs that would hurt "their baby". Nobody would get emotionally invested in other people's random utility projects. This is just a single python file here without much other context. 4. Author. The author is still an aspiring developer. See their starred repo highlighting adherence to SOLID/DRY principles as a primary feature of their project. Not something you'd expect to see from a seasoned security researcher. https://github.com/SSD1805/EchoFlow https://github.com/SSD1805/EchoFlow 5. Content. The critique is... wrong. It says the single file, utility repo is "awful" for being a "less maintainable" monolith. Hilariously, it calls the code bad because it does not need dependency injection. This was a top critique in the comment! -- Regardless of political persuasion, I hope this trend of using AI to cyberbully people you don't like goes away.
  - DonHopkins 1y ago
    I hope this trend of DOGE using the US Government to cyberbully people they don't like goes away.
  - paulgb 1y ago
    I agree on all counts. The readme of the repo you link also smacks of an AI generated summary of the codebase. (Frankly, I don’t think the AI was able to understand what the code in that repo does, which is my guess as to why it talked much about form rather than function.)
  - watwut 1y ago
    The point 2 makes me think you did not read what developers write on the internet, in particular in flame war, in particular when they have beef with whoever they argue with. Verbose hostility of that kind and throwing stones, even nitpicking with exaggerated outrage are no exception. And lack of experience never stopped people from feeling and behaving like god given gift to programming profession.
- somenameforme 1y ago
  It has excellent presentation, excess verbosity, and is wholly nonsensical. Read the code. It uses excessive whitespace doing things like function calls/declarations with one parameter per line, and so it's probably like 100 lines "real" code of mostly tight functions -- the presentation/objections make no sense whatsoever. I was able to generate extremely comparable output from ChatGPT by telling it to create a hyper-negative review, engage in endless hyperbole, and focus on danger, threats, and the obvious inexperience of the person who wrote it. Such is the nature of LLMs it'd happily produce the similar sort of nonsense for even the cleanest and tightest code ever written. I'll just quote its conclusion because LLM verbosity is... verbose. --- Conclusion This code is a ticking time bomb of security vulnerabilities, AWS billing horrors, concurrency demons, and maintenance black holes. It would fail any professional code review: Security: Fails OWASP Top 10, opens SSRF, IP spoofing, credential leakage Reliability: Race conditions, silent failures, unbounded threading Maintainability: Spaghetti architecture, no documentation, magic literals Recommendation: Reject outright. Demolish and rewrite from scratch with proper layering, input validation, secure defaults, IAM roles, structured logging, and robust error handling. --- Oooo sick burn. /eyeroll
  - throwaway290 1y ago
    > I was able to generate extremely comparable output from ChatGPT by telling it Just to check, you know that ChatGPT is fully built on human writing right? Would it be ironic if I claim "what you write looks like what the tool can output, so you used the tool" if the tool was built to output stuff that looks like what you write. Fun fact: anything you or me write looks like ChatGPT too. It could be surprising if people didn't spend billions and stole truckloads of scraped unlicensed content including content created by you and me to get the tool to literally do just this.
- odo1242 1y ago
  The format doesn’t itself indicate AI, but when combined with the fact that the critique is mostly nonsense it does appear to strongly suggest it.
- Suppafly 1y ago
  >Modestly competent presentation is now getting portrayed as an "AI tell". This. Someone on a reddit gamedev sub the other day was showing where his game got review bombed because his own description of his game used good descriptions and bulleted lists. It seems like anytime a bulleted list is used now, people assume it's because of AI.