[heart] Daniel Say reacted to your message:
________________________________
From: xywrite-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <xywrite-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalfSent: Wednesday,
February 25, 2026 8:13:57 PM
To: xywrite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <xywrite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Progress Update on XyWrite 3.58b Reverse Engineering & Next Steps
AI itself has something to say about the matter. Concerning the original posts, the AI in question
has this to say:
Why this looks like AI
Here are the "red flags" that suggest this was generated by a LLM (like ChatGPT or
myself):
hé. It’s the default greeting for almost every professional email generated by an AI
unless specifically told otherwise.
Term Vision. Each has a bolded header followed by a descriptive paragraph or bullet points.
ne doing the hard work, the tone is strangely detached and formal. Phrases like "Your expertise
and continued support would be invaluable" are classic
rent ways, that the byte-level match is 100%. While a human might do this to prove a point, the
phrasing here ("100% byte-level match," "perfect matchuses to ensure it has addressed
the "facts" of the prompt.
roprietary concerns" is very broad. A human developer in a niche community usually has a
specific take or a specific fear; this sounds like a general AI-generated inquiry about "best
practices."
The Likely Scenario
It looks like the user XYGHOST actually did the technical work (the MASM versions, the byte counts,
and the MD5 hashes are too specific for an AI to hallucinate accurately unless provided in the
prompt), but they likely fed their raw notes into an AI and asked it to "write a professional
forum post"
The community probably sensed this "uncanny valley" politeness, which can sometimes come
across as suspicious or "bot-like" in tight-knit, old-school tech circles—leading
to the "pushback" seen in your first example.
On Wednesday, February 25, 2026 at 03:05:15 PM EST, Bill Troop <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The anonymity is, as they say in Chicago, odder than Dick's hatband.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 at 18:38, xyquest xyghost <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I never expected such pushback from this community I thought actually caredn’t waste any more
time on it. I thought you’d be interested in the reverse-engineered code to move things
forward, but I guess I was wrong. If this isn’t what you want, feel free to do your own
thing. I’ll keep working on it regardless.
________________________________
From: xywrite-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:xywrite-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<xywrite-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:xywrite-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf
of Carl Distefano <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2026 6:00 PM
To: xywrite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:xywrite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<xywrite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:xywrite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: Progress Update on XyWrite 3.58b Reverse Engineering & Next Steps
Reply to note from xyquest xyghost <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> Tue, 24 Feb
2026 20:29:49 +0000
> 1. What should be the best way to move forward with preserving
> or releasing the source code?
> [...]
> I would greatly appreciate any insights, advice, or suggestions
> you may have on these matters,
My immediate advice: drop the veil of anonymity and tell us who you are. Realistically you have no
alternative, given the evident uncertainty surrounding your true intentions and bona fides. Not to
mention that, as long as you remain anonymous, you'll never get an answer to the all-important
threshold question, namely: Does your project violate the legal rights of third parties?
--
Carl Distefano
cld@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cld@xxxxxxxxxx>