Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?

news.ycombinator.com

481–490 of 677 posts

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

#481
post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Pretty sure' or 'sure'? The fact that you qualify your response is interesting.

It's a wordy response that lacks any actual content. While it may not be written by a person, (or it may be a person trying to blur the line by sounding botty), it at least qualifies as the types of low value add comment that should be discouraged.

It is true that the response may not have contained a lot of useful information, and it may have been difficult to understand. However, I would like to point out that not all responses need to be long or complex to be valuable. Sometimes, a simple answer or a brief explanation can be sufficient. Additionally, it is important to remember that not everyone has the same knowledge or perspective, and that different people may have different ways of expressing themselves. So while the response may not have met your expectations, it is still a valid contribution to the conversation.

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

#482
post #198

Time for a Hacker News Orange. It's a new subscription you can pay $8 a month for to get your identity verified and comments prioritized.

That would kill throwaways, some of the best content here on hn, giving the true insight into what really happens behind the pretty facade of the companies.

I'm pretty sure the OP is joking.

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

#484

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?…

I don't use up/downvote at all. It kills "organic" conversations and shape it unnaturally. It also makes me biased to downvoted posts. I would completely disable voting system in any kind of conversations.

[deleted]

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

#485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whatever ChatGPT (or similar) can generate, humans need to do better. If we reach the point where the humans simply can't do better, well, then it won't matter. But that's a ways off. I love this response way more than I should.

It's the only bit of the response that I don't agree with. I don't come to HN solely for utilitarian purposes. If I think I'm frequently communicating with a machine on HN then then I'll stop going to HN. It really will kill HN for me. If I want to communicate with a machine for utilitarian purposes then I'll go directly to the machine and I will know that I'm communicating with a machine (a machine that cannot bring…

Yes, I agree - it was a throwaway line that I didn't think through. Maybe I'll add an edit. Thanks!

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

#486
post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a wordy response that lacks any actual content. While it may not be written by a person, (or it may be a person trying to blur the line by sounding botty), it at least qualifies as the types of low value add comment that should be discouraged.

It is true that the response may not have contained a lot of useful information, and it may have been difficult to understand. However, I would like to point out that not all responses need to be long or complex to be valuable. Sometimes, a simple answer or a brief explanation can be sufficient. Additionally, it is important to remember that not everyone has the same knowledge or perspective, and that different peopl…

There should be a 'write like GPT-3' contest. I suspect that non-native English speakers/writers often will come across as though they are bots because they - and I should say we - tend to be limited in the number of idioms that they are familiar with.

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

#487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 opi…

A true AI will not have one opinion. It will realize there are many truths - one persons truth is really a perspective based on their inputs which are different than another's. Change the inputs and you’ll often get a different output.

ChatGPT further proves this notion - you can ask it to prove/disprove the same point and it will do so quite convincingly both times.

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

#488

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?…

(We detached this subthread from its original parent, which was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33950747.)

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

#489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 opi…

A true AI will not have one opinion. It will realize there are many truths - one persons truth is really a perspective based on their inputs which are different than another's. Change the inputs and you’ll often get a different output. ChatGPT further proves this notion - you can ask it to prove/disprove the same point and it will do so quite convincingly both times.

> ChatGPT further proves this notion - you can ask it to prove/disprove the same point and it will do so quite convincingly both times.

Just like any lawyer, then, depending on who foots the bill.

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

#490
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Some people genuinely do want to watch the world burn. Either feelings of power, to get revenge on a community that rejected them or because they hate the topic that community formed around.

Or just because they are enticed by the magic look of the flames.

There is definitely an amount of amoral interest in amongst all the angry idiots with more specific reasons to be causing trouble.

Post reply on HN