← Back to context

Comment by deepfriedrice

15 hours ago

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.co...

[1] https://github.com/ricci/async-ip-rotator/blob/master/src/as...

17 comments

deepfriedrice

Reply
captainkrtek  13 hours 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  12 hours 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".

    • Suppafly  8 minutes 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.

    • odo1242  7 hours 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.

    • captainkrtek  11 hours 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..

      2 replies →

    • somenameforme  10 hours 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

      1 reply →

    • ahwelatif  11 hours 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

      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.

      6 replies →