221–230 of 500 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what's stopping a AI-written article from also doing that?
Reputation. If it’s not a one-off, they will eventually get discovered and lose their audience.
The problem with these texts to me is that the parts that are information-dense are often not real and the majority is not information-dense. It’s just filler text of a sort that’s pointless “35% ram. 3x throughout. No latency trade off. That’s the whole point”. Okay, what’s this random “that’s the whole point” added there. Useless.
I know it’s passé to say “HN is becoming like X” but this is pure LinkedIn slop. Someone publishes pure bullshit and their fan club posts a bunch of likes and “I’m so excited to see this. Great post”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As opposed to wonderful old HN, where about 95% of the front page is now AI, AI-related, or AI-generated.
That's a high exaggeration of course, but in the wonderful old HN tradition of perceiving the site as dominated by $badness, where everyone has their own perception of $badness. I'm not picking on you - it's practically a universal response, so much so that it must be driven by human hard-wiring. I've written about this so many times that for once I don't even know what to link to. Perhaps https://news.ycombinator.co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Damn you people for asking good questions that go straight to the fuzzy areas! I don't know for sure yet. But you're right that that would follow from what I said. What I do know is that users should flag articles that they think don't belong on HN. But this should rely on their reading of https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not just be based on a like/dislike reaction. That is, users should flag art…
What I do know is that users should flag articles that they think don't belong on HN If this is true then this statement should be added to the guidelines. Many a time I've seen a submission and thought "My god, this is the most moronic thing I've ever read in my life, nearly every single factual claim in this is wrong" but I don't flag it because "don't post utter drivel" is not in the guidelines.
It's true that we don't spell things out precisely, but that's because it's impossible to spell things out fully precisely. If you start, where do you stop?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think classifying it as an allergy or a status thing is a little too glib. I’ve read and reviewed, conservatively, hundreds of AI generated documents for work, and “written”/commissioned a bunch too. My biggest issue is that it’s impossible to engage with and give feedback on an AI written document, because it’s impossible to know whether misconceptions or gaps are because the author doesn’t understand the material…
That's interesting, thank you! My only pushback is that my bit about "allergy" and "status" is about the audience response here, whereas you seem to be talking on a somewhat different level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reputation. If it’s not a one-off, they will eventually get discovered and lose their audience.
I believe we're in a fairly limited window of time right now where that's even detectable via tools like Pangram. For small models it'll, maybe not the case. But for anything worth paying for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a high exaggeration of course, but in the wonderful old HN tradition of perceiving the site as dominated by $badness, where everyone has their own perception of $badness. I'm not picking on you - it's practically a universal response, so much so that it must be driven by human hard-wiring. I've written about this so many times that for once I don't even know what to link to. Perhaps https://news.ycombinator.co…
(Apologies if you've commented on the following already, but I've not seen it.) The most concerning growing trend I see is comments that don't violate any guidelines, but are flagged to dead. I'm not talking about posters that are shadowbanned, but about comments that engaged thoughtfully on a topic but the rest of the thread disagreed emphatically with. I also don't even mean controversial takes on hot-button issues…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Community generated tags seems like the obvious solution to all of this. You could easily give a setting to turn them off, breaks no existing systems, and allows for a broad emergent taxonomy. Only surface tags above X community upvotes except to superusers who are allowed to propose tags. But then again, there’s always reddit :)
It breaks a central goal of HN, which is a non-siloed experience where the entire community is exposed to the same feed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a nested-enough subthread that I can say whatever I want because no one will ever link to it because if they do no one will care. The class of comments you're talking about—not just ones that say "clanker" literally but the more general category—is particle-wave undecidable right now. If the commenter is right—i.e. if the commenter they are castigating actually did post LLM-generated text—then it's a communit…
and then some articles will have maybe a small section, 10% of it, LLM generated. And the it really is a superposition of LLM/human written, and flaggable/unflaggable