Yes, using a crypto algorithm also counts as rolling your own crypto. You're putting together crypto libs that others wrote. Most crypto vulnerabilities come from glueing together solid crypto implementations. The glueing has to be solid too. Just "using" a crypto algorithm sounds like a recipe for a vulnerability.
I'm not a crypto expert, I'm just telling you what I've been reading on HN for the past few years.
You're not completely wrong in that it's still possible to f up, even when using misuse resistant primitives.
The difference is, you're sort-of allowed to f up if it's an intelligent mistake that teaches the creators of misuse resistant libraries a thing or two about where they went wrong. If OTOH you're clearly just yoloing it, introducing your pseudo-math BS into the mix, or intentionally deviating from best practices or breaking it, then it's on you.
Using the output of a language model like mine as a comment reply on a forum like HN could potentially have a negative impact on the discourse in a number of ways.
1. It could undermine the authenticity and integrity of the conversation by introducing responses that are not genuinely from a human.
2. It could create confusion or misunderstanding, as the responses generated by the language model may not be relevant or appropriate for the specific context in which they are used.
3. It could discourage genuine participation and contribution from other members of the community, as it may seem like the conversation is being dominated by automated responses rather than authentic human interaction.
Overall, it is important to consider the impact of your actions on the online community and to strive to contribute to respectful and meaningful discourse. Using the output of a language model as a substitute for genuine human interaction is generally not a good idea, as it can undermine the authenticity and integrity of the conversation.
I'm not a crypto expert, I'm just telling you what I've been reading on HN for the past few years.