It can incorrectly lead to a process that used to be a 5 second thing suddenly becoming a back and forth 2 hour nightmare, because the metrics show "user spends more time on site".
Though in reality it turned the user from a happy user into a frustrated one whose likely to exit the platform.
Oh, GitHub is probably using a variant of this metric... :)
HN is the only real support channel in tech. First level customer service is AI, second level is outsourced idiots who blindly follow a script, the third level is ”Issue has been closed”
Anything that even vaguely smells like security research, reverse engineering or similar "dual-use" application hits the guardrails hard and fast. "Hey codex, here is our codebase, help us find exploitable issues" gives a "I can't help you with that, but I'm happy to give you a vague lecture on memory safety or craft a valgrind test harness"
I feel like this is a very common attitude amongst people who actually have delivered software as a day job for a few years. The raging sports-fan-esque Linux vs Windows fanboy battles are mostly fought by unemployed kids who still have time to customize their desktops.
Having tried codex for some security practice, it is similarly terrible.
You can link it to a course page that features the example binary to download, it can verify the hash and confirm you are working with the same binary - and then it refuses to do any practical analysis on it
The admins of the hacked project are likely to notice the hack in a day or two. Malicious actors are a separate concern, but hacks can be mitigated with cooldowns even if everyone was using them
-Does it drive more people to the app -Does it maximize time spent on the site -etc
Your idea of perfect is very different than the one LinkedIn is using
reply