[deleted]
Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
11–20 of 677 posts
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#12The comment section on HN is for comments and discussions of people so yes any form of generated responses does IMHO fundamentally disqualify.
I mean to nitpick if a AI becomes sentient and flexible enough to be called a person and decides to comment on their own that would be fine.
But when it comes to:
- auto generating responses
- hiring people to generate responses for you
- anything similar to the other points
I think it should not be allowed.
But I have no idea how to enforce this reasonably.
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#13Seems like a non problem. If it's a dull comment or just inane it'll get downvoted out of existence. If the bot actually produces something interesting about the topic, what's the problem?
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#14Dr. Casey Fiesler recently tweeted
> The @huggingface GPT detector works very well on ChatGPT-created text. I ran 5 student essays and 5 ChatGPT essays for the same prompt through it, and it was correct every time with >99.9% confidence.
How about adding a %human/%GPT statistic to posts and comments?
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#15Dr. Casey Fiesler recently tweeted > The @huggingface GPT detector works very well on ChatGPT-created text. I ran 5 student essays and 5 ChatGPT essays for the same prompt through it, and it was correct every time with >99.9% confidence. How about adding a %human/%GPT statistic to posts and comments?
Not that the HN team isn’t capable of solving this, but I think that would be a pretty significant increase in server cost to run every comment through a classifier.
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#16How are they going to be banned? Or are we just talking about banning the lame “durr, I asked cGPT and here’s what it said” responses? Those get downvoted anyway because they got boring real fast, especially since cGPT is free and open to all.
Banning on HN is kinda pointless.
But I think this is more about preventing/limiting karma gain of an account, potentially posting/commenting limits and similar stuff.
I.e. it's more about migating the (assumed negative) effect a few people abusing comment generation could have then it is about punishing people.
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#17Is the "point" of HN comments to let people (humans) speak their minds, or generate insightful thought-provoking discussion? If the latter, I say let the bot post. Maybe it will force some of our more, shall we say, "insight challenged" commenters to up their game.
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#18Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#19Dr. Casey Fiesler recently tweeted > The @huggingface GPT detector works very well on ChatGPT-created text. I ran 5 student essays and 5 ChatGPT essays for the same prompt through it, and it was correct every time with >99.9% confidence. How about adding a %human/%GPT statistic to posts and comments?
It would work, for like 1 day
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#20No, they shouldn't be banned because ChatGPT is too good at mimicking different styles. It would be impossible to tell which responses were generated by ChatGPT and which were not. Plus, it's just too much fun to see what kind of ridiculous answers ChatGPT will come up with. (this text was generated by cGPT, as an example of it)
Quoted post unavailable.
>For example, chatbots can be programmed to send out large numbers of messages that support a particular political candidate or cause, which can distort public discourse and undermine the integrity of elections.
As opposed to an entire industry doing this, except usually by hiring humans?