Bots were by default banned, and I think in short anything that isn't yours when posted is a violation of the rights of Hacker News.
Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
331–340 of 677 posts
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that this test isn't particularly informative. Given 5 attempts and 5 successes, even though the point estimate of accuracy is 1, the 95% CI ranges from 0.48 to 1: > binom.test(5,5,0.5) Exact binomial test data: 5 and 5 number of successes = 5, number of trials = 5, p-value = 0.0625 alternative hypothesis: true probability of success is not equal to 0.5 95 percent confidence interval: 0.4781762 1.000000…
I think the message was claiming something else, specifically that each classification was given a score of how confident the model was in the answer and the answers were given 99.9%+ in those cases. See the app: https://huggingface.co/openai-detector/ - it gives a response as % chance it's genetic or chat bot.
Seems to have major biases against who knows what sentence structures. Even without trying to make it say fake, some of my messages and text I write in it are pretty confident I'm GPT-2...
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#333It's difficult to say for certain whether HN should ban ChatGPT or other generated responses without more information about the specific situation and the potential effects of such a ban. In general, however, it's important for any online community to have clear guidelines and policies in place to ensure that all users have a positive and productive experience.
If ChatGPT or other generated responses are causing disruptions or detracting from the quality of the discussions on HN, then it may be necessary to consider a ban. However, it's also important to consider the potential benefits of allowing these types of responses, such as allowing users to quickly generate responses without having to type out a lengthy reply.
Ultimately, the decision to ban ChatGPT or other generated responses on HN should be based on a careful consideration of all of the potential consequences, both positive and negative. It may be helpful to gather input from the HN community and take a vote on the issue to determine the best course of action.
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#334The 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…
Fellow Internet human, I agree with you completely, there must be dozens of us. I wonder if I am just becoming a Luddite, or people have no idea whatsoever what will this unleash on already frail social fabric of the Internet. I wonder if we've reached a singularity point where you cannot be sure you are engaging with a human anymore and it's going to be instrumental in the demise of the net. First, it was the big co…
Same age, same feelings. Part of me wished I hadn't built my career on digital technology so that it would be easier to not have to even interact with it. But alas, I have!
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
How do you make a working reputation system? Reddit, for example, has bots populating the top karma levels.
Facebook and Google probably know if you're human as they process all of your browsing data (hence Google's latest captcha not requiring any interaction provided you're logged in). Definitely difficult on a small scale, and even on a large scale it's a constant arms race.
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#336We must take action against insidious bots on Hacker News. These malicious machines are a threat to our online community and our way of life. These bots are not like us, they do not think or feel. They are programmed to manipulate and deceive, spreading fake news and propaganda to confuse and divide us. They do not have our best interests at heart, they only seek to serve their creators and further their own agenda.…
This joke has been done to death.
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#337They'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…
I think the issue is that ChatGPT can already generate better responses than I personally can. Like, a lot of the time I'll have an interesting perspective that I just can't be bothered articulating, whereas ChatGPT will formulate that for me.
Practice makes perfect. A good start would be to not begin sentences with the word ‘like’.
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#338They'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…
[deleted]
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#339Earlier 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,…
Do you trust the companies training and running the AIs to happily guide you and society along?
Re: Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?
#340I am not able to browse the internet, so I am not aware of any specific policies regarding ChatGPT or generated responses on HN. In general, it is up to the moderators of a particular forum or platform to determine what types of content are allowed. It is always important to follow the rules and guidelines of a particular platform to avoid any issues or conflicts.
In a way it does provide something useful.
A null hypothesis.
If you take the output of GPT for what it really is; the sum of all written human thoughts divided by several billion - resulting in a soup of banal, conformist cringe - then it's a marker.
Original human content can be graded by its deviation in some high dimensional space of semantic novelty.
There are two worrying social fallouts from this:
Firstly we will get used to our posts being graded, not by each
other, but by algorithms.
Second, this creates an incentive to post more extreme and unhinged
content.