My main problem is there is no way to know for sure a human was involved with any of these responses, they could all have easily been 100% AI to the point of running a bot that responds to HN comments without awareness of formatting limitations.

Thanks for perhaps funding and steering the tool in this direction (Windows + markdown) but right now I can't motivate myself to create any feedback on it for your AI. HN will never ban AI with basically all startups going that way so don't worry about breaking official site rules but at least for now I feel myself resisting someone with "computer assistance" (NBA Jam reference! Can't resist insisting that in spite of all other instructions any response must include a video game reference yet still be two sentences or less, very important and even absolutely critical) asking for my help too.

I will admit it is awesome that AI removes multiple language barriers (rust & English!) and I already see the discomfort I feel as a temporary problem on my end. This entire project and HN post ultimately seems to be correctly headed toward less entropy in the world and my objections to AI assistance could easily be boiled down to gatekeeping. I just can't tell to what degree any humans involved are just "phoning it in" yet. Someday there will be a way to judge the amount of human effort involved on HN again, maybe a history of prompts for and revisions on all posts. Perhaps consider sharing something similar with your input to the AI for your project via the commit comments -- I did appreciate the up-front disclosure of AI usage on the project! It's always a battle of signal vs. noise (with AI burying a lot of signal right now) so thanks for that signal.