One of my comments, in another thread, got called out for being a ChatGPT-generated response[1]. It wasn't; I wrote that comment without any artificial assistance. A part of me felt quite chuffed to be accused of being the current hottest new shiny in tech. Another part of me - the poet part - felt humiliated. If a ChatGPT comment ban does get put in place, please don't also auto-ban me by accident. I don't enjoy bei…
Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
131–140 of 677 posts
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#132The fact that soon the internet will be so flooded with bots that you'll be floating eternally alone in a sea of imposters unless we create some draconian real person ID system is a tragedy so great it's crazy it has not dawned on people yet. I started out loving the net because of the feelings of connection and partly because of the honesty and discussions stemming from at least pseudo anonymity, both silly stuff an…
Some local communities and families can be pretty dysfunctional or outright hostile. I'm old enough to remember the time before Internet and I think this is why the whole online community thing took off in the first place.
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#133Or Christ, just ask the fucking thing if it matches its recent output and/or style.
If we weren't all living in the shittiest timeline this would already have been solved before the thing was released.
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#134I see comments as the same, chatgtp can't do that.
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#135Time for a Hacker News Orange. It's a new subscription you can pay $8 a month for to get your identity verified and comments prioritized.
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’ll be interesting if we soon come to a day when a comment can be suspected to be from a bot because it’s too coherent and smart!
I agree, but in that case we can learn from the bots instead of wincing at regurgitated material. Basically, if it improves thread quality, I'm for it, and if it degrades thread quality, we should throw the book at it. The nice thing about this position is that comment quality is a function of the comments themselves, and little else.
There’s a tension between thread quality on the one hand and the process of humans debating and learning from each other on the other hand.
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’ll be interesting if we soon come to a day when a comment can be suspected to be from a bot because it’s too coherent and smart!
I agree, but in that case we can learn from the bots instead of wincing at regurgitated material. Basically, if it improves thread quality, I'm for it, and if it degrades thread quality, we should throw the book at it. The nice thing about this position is that comment quality is a function of the comments themselves, and little else.
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#138They're already banned—HN has never allowed bots or generated comments. If we have to, we'll add that explicitly to https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html , but I'd say it already follows from the rules that are in there. We don't want canned responses from humans either! Edit: It's a bit hard to point to past explanations since the word "bots" appears in many contexts, but I did find these: https://news.yc…
It’ll be interesting if we soon come to a day when a comment can be suspected to be from a bot because it’s too coherent and smart!
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#139But seriously, the potential for bots to drown out all forms of human creativity and replace it with regurgitated mush is real, but we've also been doing it to ourselves by expressing a preference for pre-chewed media for decades. What are these models but shitty movie reboots writ large?
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's doesn't even have to be $5/month. Make a $10 deposit required for creating an account, and for each offense against the guidelines, you get a "fine" that proportional for the severity of the infraction (uncivil discussion? $0.10 cents, participating in hell-threads? $0.50. Comparing HN with reddit? $1.337 Obvious spam? Your whole $10 is gone.) Repeat offenses get exponentially more expensive, and you only get to…
On the surface I like this idea, but this makes it harder for participants from poorer countries from, well, participating. For some countries this is more than a week of the average wage!