It does make me curious about the what the super anti-ai people will do.

Matt Godbolt is, obviously, extremely smart and has a lot of interesting insight as a domain expert. But... this was LLM-assisted.

So, anyone who has previously said they'll never (knowingly) read anything that an ai has touched (or similar sentiment) are you going to skip this series? Make an exception?

I think most people wouldn't call proof-reading 'assistance'. As in, if I ask a colleague to review my PR, I wouldn't say he assisted me.

I've been throwing my PR diffs at Claude over the last few weeks. It spits a lot of useless or straight up wrong stuff, but sometimes among the insanity it manages to get one or another typo that a human missed, and between letting a bug pass or spending extra 10m per PR going through the nothingburguers Claude throws at me, I'd rather lose the 10m.