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

251–260 of 677 posts

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

#251

Post by xerox13ster »

codetrotter wrote: post #236
holoduke wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never seen questions to itself or other's in the generated text. Also it never expresses emotions. Never something like "I am convinced.. ." , "I dont want to be....". I find it quite easy to recognize in comment sections.

You just gotta give it the right prompt. For example, I gave it the following prompt: > Imagine yourself able to ask yourself a question, or express emotions. Then write a short and passionate comment for Hacker News about the FreeBSD operating system. The response includes a standard disclaimer that the OpenAI people put in there, but also satisfies expression of emotion: > As a machine learning model, I am not capa…

It definitely still reads like shill or spam without.

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

#252

Post by gorgoiler »

One thing I’m guilty of on this site is not upvoting enough. I vote down the banality and flag the pollution. Upvoting doesn’t seem to come as naturally — whenever I read an interesting response it’s the last thing on my mind. It’s a good thing really. Interesting stories and comments are the norm.

I wonder what the userDB says about any scarcity of upvoters? Are there many others like me? Am I not pulling my weight? Should I do it more?

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

#253

Post by noncoml »

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…

Hmmm. That’s exactly what dang-gpt would have said..

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

#255

Post by askvictor »

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…

Reputation could hold this at bay for a little (in place of a real person ID), though you have the obvious problem of bootstrapping a real person's reputation who is only entering the forum.

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

#256

Post by js8 »

rtkwe wrote: post #146
romanhn wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't sound all that different from human comments, to be honest

Human incorrect comments are at least written by people and if the person isn't actually knowledgeable about a subject it's likely to show more in the response than it does in gpt which can mimic all the right forms to appear smarter/more correct. Beyond anything else though at least when it's a person writing the wrong answer they spent the time to write it vs the copy paste it automation of using chatgpt. That litt…

I have seen firsthand the effect of wrong comments (I have written them) being upvoted more than the correcting responses that came afterwards. So yeah, it can happen with humans too, on occasion.

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

#257

Post by mnky9800n »

arcturus17 wrote: post #246
foota wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Because this is what I got: "Me: How do partial derivative apply in one dimensional calculus? In one-dimensional calculus, a partial derivative is a derivative taken with respect to one variable, while treating all other variables as constants. For example, if a function f(x,y) depends on two variables x and y, the partial derivative of f with respect to x is denoted as ∂f/∂x, and it represents the rate at wh…

> then taking the partial derivative with respect to that variable is equivalent to taking the ordinary derivative of the function I could not get it for the life of me to actually say this. But it goes on to show, everyone's mileage with the tool varies a lot. Edit: I cannot rescue my original prompt, but it was something like: "Does it make sense to speak of partial derivatives in single-variable calculus?" I'll gr…

Almost every response I get from chatgpt is that it cannot answer the question because it's a program. So for me it doesn't even try.

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

#258

Post by noncoml »

rglullis wrote: post #58
keiferski wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has a far easier and less dystopian solution: charge money to access communities, which are smaller and more focused. I find it very unlikely that corporate PR bots will be paying $5 a month each to spam Substack communities, for example.

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…

Shut up and take my money

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

#259

Post by noncoml »

midoridensha wrote: post #188
zarzavat wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the near term we will have to start Turing testing our conversation partners. You can about a current event, because these models have a training date cutoff. For example, ask them what the top story on the news was yesterday.

Those of us who don't read the news daily, or live in a different country, won't know the answer to that question either.

You can quickly google it

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

#260

Post by mobiuscog »

AI may not have taken over. It is however:

Dividing humans Reducing useful discourse Empowering those with the wealth to control it

At the very least, attempting to automatically annotate anything AI generated would allow each reader to make their own decisions. The annotation may not be completely accurate, but would prevent human responses being lost due to false positives - as AI becomes more capable of mimicking humans, we run the risk of discussions becoming echo-chambers overrun by AI.

(The other solution harks back to the calls for removing anonymity and requiring some sort of identification mechanism, but that then leads to other problems)

If AI contributes well enough to be acceptable to most readers, perhaps it should be allowed. So long as it is within the rules that humans must also observe. Otherwise, what is being achieved, other than oppression ?

Post reply on HN