Comment by dragonwriter

> Developers are busy people and security researcher devs are busy even moreso.

Neither the critique, the critiquer's profile, nor even the Krebs article says that the critique is a security researcher, and it definitely isn't the case that all devs are particularly "busy people". You yourself argue later, in fact, that the signs are that the author is not an experienced dev or security researcher, so it is nonsense (even more than assuming an average rules out an exception in the group) to argue that the code is AI-written based on the assumption that normally, a security researcher would be too busy to write it.

> 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.

If you've been online more than about 5 minutes, you know that there is no shortage of hostility, and that even if it isn't most of any given community, its a highly visible subset of any community online.

> "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.

The only reason we are talking about this on HN is that this isn't some random "other people's random utility project". The critique was posted while the author of the code being critiqued was a high profile figure in current news stories, and the critiquer posted a more explicitly political followup the day after the original critique addressing the author's highly-publicized resignation due to the news coverage.

> The author is still an aspiring developer. See their starred repo highlighting adherence to SOLID/DRY principles as a primary feature of their project.

That...doesn't support the critique being AI. In fact, it undercuts it because it provides a simpler explanation than AI as the explanation for your next bullet point, that the critique is wrong (especially, the SOLID/DRY focus is particularly consistent combined with the "aspiring dev" status you describe is particularly consistent with the specific things you focus on the critique being wrong about.) It also undercuts your first bullet point, as already discussed, which hinges on the assumption that the critique was written by an very busy experienced security researcher, and not an aspiring dev..

I mean, if excess verbosity, a more regularized format than is typical for the venue, and being wrong together are hallmarks of an AI written critique, then I'd say your post is at least as much AI-suspicious as the critique under discussion.