341–350 of 559 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Abusing the flag button by reporting LLM generated posts and comments (which are not breaking any current guidelines) seems like a good way to get your flags ignored.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47290841 It is against the rules though
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the right people will stick around. There is a certain kind of indivudal that has the paitence to understand that a system that restricts new accounts from post is a good thing. Of recent, there have been a lot of posters that come here from the open web just to try and slant opinion.
But sticking around doesn't solve the scenario mentioned by parent. 1. some interesting projects gets to HN main page 2. author of the project is not on HN so creates a green account and interacts even if that person would have the patience to stick around, by the time they would be able to respond, it would be too late for it to be relevant to the (now stale) discussion.
This is a fundamental part of how HN sees its own functioning; they refer to it as "rate limiting".
I furthermore wish that "posting an LLM-generated comment (i.e. and passing it off as your own)" was worthy of an instant ban, because I see this sort of behavior from non-green accounts as well. EDIT: I meant (but totally forgot) to qualify that my "proposal" would only apply when the LLM-ness is self-obvious—idk, make up a "reasonable person" standard or something. Presumably, the moderators would err on the side o…
It pretty much is. It’s not hard and fast (sometimes we’ll warn people or email them to ask if it’s not certain) and it takes time for us to see things and act, especially when people don’t email us when they see these comments.
But as a general rule, accounts that post generated comments get banned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm, some LLM text is hard to detect, sure. Some is also horribly easy. If the text is full of: - Overly positive commentary and encouragement - Constant use of bullet point lists, bolding and emoji - This quaint forced 'funniness', like a misplaced attempt at being lighthearted - A lot of blablah that just missed the point - Not concise and to the point, but also not super long Then that really screams ChatGPT to me…
LOL. You just described your own comment!
We're going to at least restrict Show HNs for a while. I do think this is relevant though: "HN can't be immune from macro trends" - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please do so. And, forgive me if I speak heresy, but there has to be more proof of work (friction) to create accounts. I was shocked at how easy it is for something like chatgpt atlas to create new accounts on the fly.
The problem is that we might lose some gold. Not too seldom have I seen the author or a significant party of a story chime in through a fresh green account, as they were alerted by the story being posted here one way or another. And usually when they do it's very interesting. As such I would find it detrimental if they had to jump through too many hoops so they don't bother or it takes too long so the thread dies bef…
(a bit more about this at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47056384, with a reply from the OP)
We're going to at least restrict Show HNs for a while. I do think this is relevant though: "HN can't be immune from macro trends" - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah it's weird, there was one case where I thought it was AI but wasn't sure. Several other comments pointed it out, too. Author claimed he wrote it manually. (Which is honestly even more concerning!) Maybe there can be a dedicated 'flag botspam' button? Then again it's a nuanced issue. I see AI used in a large percentage of writing now, so would this rule apply to the article as well?
> Yeah it's weird, there was one case where I thought it was AI but wasn't sure. Several other comments pointed it out, too. Author claimed he wrote it manually. (Which is honestly even more concerning!) I find the above comment concerning, so I ask: to what degree is the above commenter calibrated to ground truth? How would they know? How would we know? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibrated_probability_asses…
But yeah, there isn't a way to prove it one way or the over, even when it's "obvious".
I saw in some schools they're using systems where you have to type the essay in a web app, and the web app analyzes your keystrokes to determine if you're human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was thinking about this the other day. If someone made TempleOS today, people wouldn't be as impressed, because they'd just assume they used AI. They'd assume this, even if they hadn't used AI, and even if AI didn't have to ability to pull it off.
That dev made many videos about its creation and motivations though and along with their personality I think people would be understanding.
Not sure I understand your 2nd argument though?