Moreover, this is a breach of trust between the reviewer and the author. Our assumption when we review is that we're talking to a real person who wants to do their best work.

I think this is a really excellent point and gets at a general feeling I've had towards LLM-generated PR comments for a while now. I can understand the desire to use LLMs to generate changes (my company pushes AI super hard and it genuinely is a helpful tool in many cases), but to delegate discussion of those changes to an AI model feels extremely antisocial to me. I don't really like the idea of vibe-coding in general, and this practice really distills down everything I don't like about it with an added layer of deception.

Random thought, but I think this is the plot of one of the Jimmy Timmy Power Hours.

I do kind of take issue with the presentation here. Pointing to the number of countries without access is rather misleading because it gives a country as large as Pakistan the exact same weight as somewhere like Tuvalu. In terms of population, the list of blocked countries is I believe around 30% of the world population. That's definitely still significant and IMO worthy of a headline on its own, but the way this article focuses only on the raw number of countries feels disingenuous for the sake of being able to showcase a big attention-grabbing number.

This is pretty much what OpenAI tried to do with Scarlett Johansson (or more specifically, her voice) before they got hit with a C&D. Of course, this was after they had already tried to work with her directly so the intent was pretty obvious in that scenario.

They absolutely can, at least under the right circumstances. I accidentally scratched my dog's eye least year while playing with him, and as a result he developed a pretty bad case of pink eye about a week later, discharge and all.

It fortunately cleared up pretty quickly with some prescription eye ointment, which _un_fortunately required a fairly pricey urgent care visit to basically say "Yep, it's pink eye".

Better security, better fractional scaling, and proper support for mixed refresh rates and VRR, to name some of the bigger reasons.

On the contrary, the borrow checker is basically the first thing you learn about when writing in Rust as it's the primary "gimmick" of the language. Anyone writing a non-trivial program should have at least heard the term before, even if they don't fully understand how it works.

The borrow checker is a feature of Rust's compiler which places strict constraints on ownership of data to guarantee memory safety. It adds a lot of friction to writing Rust code if you're not experienced with the language (or sometimes even if you are). OP refers to the "language restriction of Rust", seemingly talking about the borrow checker, but has never even heard of it. It's kind of like someone claiming they didn't vibecoded their C++ project but having no idea what the STL is.

That was obviously a joke though, and it wasn't even OP.

Jeez, what a freak.

I don't disagree that the language is a great way to build an understanding of object lifecycles, but in my experience C++ ctors and dtors are also the biggest source of confusing footguns I've ever encountered in any programming language.

Separately, template metaprogramming is a whole different beast. It's an extremely powerful tool, but to me it also feels like finding the correct incantation to get it to do exactly what you need for more complex scenarios. It can be really fun if you know what you're doing, but it also tends to make me very upset at the compiler when my incantations are a bit off.

In this case they're referring to essentially a market niche in a new "category" of news.