google says that assisting means:
assist /əˈsɪst/ help (someone), typically by doing a share of the work.
So in this case... wouldn't the relationship be inverted, e.g. you assisting AI? (semi joking ;))
100% of the code was generated by AI (Claude Opus 4.5(I am super impressed by the capabilities of Opus 4.5), via Cursor with MCP tools). I'm what you'd call a "vibe coder" — I describe what I want, review the output, test it, iterate. I haven't written Rust by hand for this project.
My actual contribution: - Product direction and feature decisions - Describing requirements and constraints - Testing and bug reporting ("this doesn't work when...") - Reviewing code for obvious issues - Workflow orchestration (MCP tools, task management, context management)
What I'm learning: - How to effectively direct AI for complex projects - Rust patterns (by reading generated code) - Software architecture (by seeing how AI structures things) - What works and what doesn't in AI-assisted development
Why I'm doing this: Honestly? To learn and experiment. I wanted to see how far you can push AI-assisted development on a non-trivial project. Ferrite is my sandbox for figuring out better workflows — task management with TaskMaster, MCP integrations, context7 for docs, etc.
Is this "real" software development? I don't know. It's definitely a new paradigm. The code compiles, runs, and does useful things. Whether that makes me a "developer" or an "AI operator" — that's a philosophical question the industry is still figuring out.
The documentation and comments being AI-heavy was a fair tell. I probably should have been upfront about this from the start.
The HN responses are AI-assisted — I'm using Claude to help draft replies. Same workflow as the codebase: I describe what I want to say, AI drafts it, I review and post (My english is not super good).
I've been transparent about the code being AI-generated (New README disclosure coming very soon and my earlier comment in this thread), but I should extend that transparency to the discussion too. Thanks for the accountability check.
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.