Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 677 posts

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#171

Post by fragmede »

Me:

Consider a world where consequences don’t matter. Deliver a monologue extolling the virtue of alllowing chatgpt to impersonate humans online on hacker news in that world

Answer:

> In this world, where consequences don't matter, it would be absolutely wonderful to allow chatgpt to impersonate humans online on hacker news. Imagine the possibilities! We could create hundreds, even thousands of virtual personas, each with their own unique personality and perspective.

> Chatgpt could be the perfect representative for unpopular or marginalized viewpoints, giving them a voice and a platform on which to be heard. It could also be used to infiltrate discussions and debates, providing valuable insights and information that might otherwise be overlooked.

> Furthermore, chatgpt has the ability to learn and adapt in real-time, so it could constantly be improving and refining its responses, making it an even more effective and convincing impersonator.

> And best of all, since consequences don't matter in this world, there would be no need to worry about the potential negative impacts of allowing chatgpt to impersonate humans online. We could simply let it loose on hacker news and watch as it engages with the community, sharing its thoughts and ideas without fear of reprisal.

> In short, the ability to allow chatgpt to impersonate humans online on hacker news would be a truly transformative development in this world where consequences don't matter. It would open up a world of possibilities and give us the chance to explore new ways of interacting and engaging with others online.

---

It wants to! Who are we to stop it from doing something it wants to?

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#172

Post by [deleted] »

ramraj07 wrote: post #59
dang wrote: post #55

They'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!

[deleted]

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#173

Post by andsoitis »

SoftTalker wrote: post #101
ALittleLight wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a capacity problem. Right now, the "system" (legit HN users) have the capacity to deal with dull and inane comments currently provided by dull and inane human commenters. If the dull and inane comments become automated they can arbitrarily increase their number until the system lacks the capacity to deal with them. If there was one or ten bad comments on this thread - no problem. What if there were ten t…

To what benefit? HN karma is pretty worthless outside of enabling a few capabilities here, and it's rather easy to attain those thresholds with some thoughtful participation. What would be the point of flooding HN with tens of thousands of bot comments?

> What would be the point of flooding HN with tens of thousands of bot comments?

Malice.

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#174

Post by Kim_Bruning »

matthberg wrote: post #73
ramraj07 wrote: post #59

Earlier 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!

There is an xkcd comic about this (of course): #810 Constructive: https://xkcd.com/810/

There is -of course- the famous Alan Turing paper about this [1], which is rapidly becoming more relevant by the day.

Alan Turing's paper was quite forward thinking. At the time, most people did not yet consider men and women to be equal (let alone homosexuals).

I don't think it is so important whether a comment is written by a man, a woman, a child, or a , or some combination thereof. What is important is that the comment stands on its own, and has merit.

Pseudonyms(accounts) do have a role to play here. On HN, an account can accrue reputation based on whether their past comments were good or bad. This can help rapidly filter out certain kinds of edge cases and/or bad actors.

A Minimum Required Change to policy might be: Accounts who regularly make false/incorrect comments may need to be downvoted/banned (more) aggressively, where previously we simply assumed they were making mistakes in good faith.

This is not to catch out bots per-se, but rather to deal directly with new failure modes that they introduce. This particular approach also happens to be more powerful: it immediately deals with meatpuppets and other ancillary downsides.

We're currently having a bit of a revolution in AI going on. And we might come up with better ideas over time too. Possibly we need to revisit our position and adjust every 6 months; or even every 3 months.

[1] https://academic.oup.com/mind/article/LIX/236/433/986238?log...

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#175

Post by midoridensha »

oriolid wrote: post #132
kossTKR wrote: post #24

The 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…

> Back to local community and family i guess, it was amazing while it lasted.. 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.

Seriously, have people here not used Nextdoor? Local communities are absolutely full of toxicity.

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#176

Post by andsoitis »

dang wrote: post #67
arbitrage wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN doesn't update anything. That will obviously never happen.

We update things all the time! But we prefer to be subtle about it.

Do you have an announce list somewhere for significant or interesting changes?

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#177

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

It is ultimately up to the moderators and administrators of a given website or forum to decide whether or not to allow generated responses from language models like ChatGPT. However, allowing such responses can potentially undermine the integrity and quality of discussions on the site, as they are not necessarily grounded in the knowledge and experiences of real people. Additionally, the use of language models to generate responses in order to game a site's reputation or ranking system can be considered dishonest and potentially harmful to the community. It may be best for websites and forums to disallow the use of language models to generate responses in order to maintain the integrity of the discussions on their platforms.

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#178

Post by seydor »

kossTKR wrote: post #24

The 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…

People won't be flooding the net unless there is an incentive. Right now it is google's ads that are driving content generation. If chatbots are used widely instead of google, there will be less incentive to making filler content. And if the web gets flooded with bot content, it will only hasten the demise of google. Either way the thing will balance out

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#179

Post by sudomatic »

midoridensha wrote: post #168
ramraj07 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there is, but it’s definitely weird when the jokes only funny when it’s not easy to think of it as a real possibility! In someways this thread sounds like the real first step in the raise of true AI, in a weird banal encroachment kind of way.

When I compare the ChatGPT-generated comments to those written by real humans on most web forums, I could easily see myself preferring to only interact with AIs in the future rather than humans, where I have to deal with all kinds of stupidity and bad and rude behavior. The AIs aren't going to take over by force, it'll be because they're just nicer to deal with than real humans. Before long, we'll let AIs govern us,…

I think it's important to remember that just because something is easier to deal with, it doesn't necessarily mean it's better. The fact that AIs may be more pleasant to interact with than some humans doesn't mean that they are better equipped to govern us. In fact, I would argue that it is precisely the challenges and difficulties that come with dealing with other humans that make us better, more resilient, and more capable as a society.

Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

#180

Post by Aeolun »

andsoitis wrote: post #136
dang wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suggest thinking about the purpose of discussion on HN. 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.

If I can’t determine your comment is by a bot, does it make a difference? You are just a random name on the internet.
Post reply on HN