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

441–450 of 677 posts

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

#441

Post by xienze »

detaro wrote: post #415
xienze wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why this site -- or any site with up/downvoting, really -- doesn't implement a "must comment to downvote" policy. Far too often downvoting is just the "I disagree and think you suck" button[0]. Make someone elaborate on _why_ they disagree or _why_ the original poster is wrong before allowing a downvote. 0: in particular, on HN the downvote button also seems to serve the purpose of "I don't think other peopl…

That's a surefire way to give more attention to bad posts and cause flamewars that spiral out of control.

I think you’re making the flawed assumption that no one would ever downvote something that might be well-intentioned, well-argued, but unpopular (for example, literally anything about Covid that goes against popular opinion).

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

#442

Post by detaro »

xienze wrote: post #441
detaro wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a surefire way to give more attention to bad posts and cause flamewars that spiral out of control.

I think you’re making the flawed assumption that no one would ever downvote something that might be well-intentioned, well-argued, but unpopular (for example, literally anything about Covid that goes against popular opinion).

No, I'm not assuming that. You can't have "must comment to downvote" just for those though, and having it for all is bad for the given reasons.

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

#443

Post by t0bia_s »

matkoniecz wrote: post #402
t0bia_s wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't actual response in words more useful to you? Like this question? Otherwise I would downvote. Which I never do.

> Isn't actual response in words more useful to you? Yes, but if it has actual content. +1 comments are inferior to upvotes.

Right, what content voting has? None. That's why it is irrelevant for me.

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

#444

Post by jacquesm »

contravariant wrote: post #431
jacquesm wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But that's a ways off. Given the jumps in output quality between '1', '2' and '3' that may not be as far off as I would like it to be. It reminds me of the progression of computer chess. From 'nice toy' to 'beats the worlds best human' since 1949 to 'Man vs Machine World Team Championships' in 2004 is 55 years, but from Sargon (1978) to Deep Blue (1997) is only 21 years. For years we thought there was something uni…

Sure it might produce convincing examples of human speech, but it fundamentally lacks an internal point of view that it can express, which places limits on how well it can argue something. It is of course possible that it might (eventually) be convincing enough that no human can tell, which would be problematic because it would suggest human speech is indistinguishable from a knee jerk response that doesn't require t…

But the bar really isn't 'no human can tell' the bar is 'the bulk of the humans can't tell'.

> Things would be quite different if an AI could interpret new information and form opinions, but even if GPT could be extended to do so, right now it doesn't seem to have the capability to form opinions or ingest new information (beyond a limited short term memory that it can use to have a coherent conversation).

Forming opinions is just another mode of text transformations, ingesting new information is either a conscious decision to not let the genie out of the bottle just yet or a performance limitation, neither of those should be seen as cast in stone, the one is a matter of making the model incremental (which should already be possible), the other merely a matter of time.

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

#445

Post by swader999 »

contravariant wrote: post #431
jacquesm wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But that's a ways off. Given the jumps in output quality between '1', '2' and '3' that may not be as far off as I would like it to be. It reminds me of the progression of computer chess. From 'nice toy' to 'beats the worlds best human' since 1949 to 'Man vs Machine World Team Championships' in 2004 is 55 years, but from Sargon (1978) to Deep Blue (1997) is only 21 years. For years we thought there was something uni…

Sure it might produce convincing examples of human speech, but it fundamentally lacks an internal point of view that it can express, which places limits on how well it can argue something. It is of course possible that it might (eventually) be convincing enough that no human can tell, which would be problematic because it would suggest human speech is indistinguishable from a knee jerk response that doesn't require t…

You are correct in stating that current chat bots, such as GPT, do not have the ability to form opinions or interpret new information beyond a limited short term memory. This is a limitation of current technology, and as a result, chat bots are limited in their ability to engage in complex arguments or discussions. However, it is important to note that the development of AI technology is ongoing, and it is possible that future advances will allow for the development of more sophisticated AI systems that are capable of forming opinions and interpreting new information. Until that time, chat bots will continue to be limited in their abilities.

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

#446

Post by profstasiak »

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…

>Christ this is going to be so incredibly boring, paranoid and lonely for everyone in a few years time!

I think the opposite will be true. I hope we will spend more people talking to each other in real life, which actually makes me happy that dead internet is happening.

I dont know if you buy this theory of social media causing loneliness. I intuitively feel that way and the more I talk with friends on chat, or comment here the more lonely I feel. Meanwhile meeting my friends or strangers in real life gives me a memory boost and makes me smile.

The less everyone spends on Twitter arguing with bots, or here on HN arguing in the comments the happier we all are

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

#448

Post by swader999 »

CGamesPlay wrote: post #183
andsoitis wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Intelligent debate can happen in high-quality threads. And when we are intelligently debating subjective matters, the debate is targeted towards the reader, not the opposing party. On the other hand, when we are debating objective matters, the debate leads to the parties learning from the other. So I don't think these things are opposites.

I agree that intelligent debate can happen in high-quality threads, regardless of whether the topic being discussed is subjective or objective. However, I think it's important to note that the approach to debating subjective and objective matters may be different. When debating subjective matters, the focus is often on persuading the reader or audience, whereas when debating objective matters, the goal is often to arrive at the truth or the most accurate understanding of the topic at hand. In either case, engaging in intelligent debate can be a valuable way to learn and expand our understanding of the world.
Post reply on HN