... clearly I didn't realise I was replying to the author of the article, in which case I can see why your reply was a bit defensive. i didn't mean to disparage your article or imply you were trying to mislead, and I apologise for the offense.

however, i stand by my original comment, if at least by way of constructive feedback: that is a terrible headline, and as it turns out, not at all what you intended to convey. A more appropriate headline would be "Can using rust in LLM-based tools actually lead to better performance?". You might think the two are the same but they're not. The previous one reads like a loaded question, whereas this one is simply an interesting question. And getting the wording right in these things is important; the loaded version was off-putting enough that it caused at least one of your potential readers to eyeroll and write a comment about chatgpt detecting fallacies instead of reading the article :)

I will now read the article. Sounds like an interesting topic after all, thank you for posting :)