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

511–520 of 677 posts

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

#511

Post by ljm »

shkkmo wrote: post #476
jacquesm wrote: post #455

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.

If you compare it to the comment history then it’s a remarkable change in tone of voice such that on the balance of reason, the text is now either generated by GPT or it is an accurate mimic of GPT’s typical writing style.

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

#512

Post by jacquesm »

mdp2021 wrote: post #505
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…

> on the scale of human intellect Where is the module that produces approximations to true and subtle insights about matters? Where is the "critical thinking" plugin, how is it vetted? How do you value intelligence: on the form, or on the content? Take two Authors: how do you decide which one is more intelligent? > the progression of computer chess ?! Those are solvers superseded by different, more effective solvers…

Well, for starters we could take your comment and compare it to GPT-3 output to see which one makes more sense.

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

#513

Post by jacquesm »

ljm wrote: post #511
shkkmo wrote: 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.

If you compare it to the comment history then it’s a remarkable change in tone of voice such that on the balance of reason, the text is now either generated by GPT or it is an accurate mimic of GPT’s typical writing style.

So there is one indicator: departure from the norm based on a larger body of text. But that's still not a hard judgment and it well could be that accurate mimic. After all, if AI software can mimic humans surely humans can mimic AI and the fact that it is already hard to tell which is which is a very important milestone.

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

#514

Post by prox »

bombcar wrote: post #504
komali2 wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know out of curiosity I just now logged into reddit for the first time in a while and made some posts on /r/changemymind just to see if I could get some good debate, and I don't know if it was always like that over there and I just didn't realize it (bringing that type of rhetoric here might be why i'm rate limited on HN lol), or if it just got worse over the last year of my "reddit break," but holy shit is it WA…

My gauge is how predictable it is - I can predict how a Reddit thread will go 90% of the time it seems, maybe even a 4chan thread 80% of the time. The value of a community is in the unpredictability and HN has a good percentage of that, and I can choose to ignore the threads that will be predictable (though it can be fun to read them sometimes).

That’s mostly the default subs tho, like worldnews, funny and so on. The first three comments are whatever the previous three comments where in the previous thread on the same topic. Subs like r/askhistorians has a brutal moderation where the only parent comments are well sourced informed ones.

But in general I agree on its predictability.

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

#515

Post by jacooper »

techdragon wrote: post #343
UweSchmidt wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then humans might just be on the sideline, watching chatbots flooding the forums with superbly researched mini-whitepapers with links, reasoning, humour; a flow of comments optimized like tiktok videos, unbeatable like chess engines in chess. Those bots could also collude with complementing comments, and create a background noise of opinions to fake a certain sentiment in the community. I have no suggestion or soluti…

If there’s a bot that can take a topic and research the argument you feed it, all without hallucinating any data and made up references… please please point me to it.

Prompt: systemd is bad

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

#516

Post by rtkwe »

midoridensha wrote: post #186
andsoitis wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A toll fee won’t really be a quality incentive for someone of sufficient economic means, while shutting out great contributions from someone who can’t afford it.

It'll shut out anyone that simply doesn't feel like paying for others to read their thoughts. Narcissists with money would probably love it though. The rest of us would simply abandon these forums and go find other things to do with our time and attention.

That's the big problem with pay to post schemes. Even with miniscule payments the friction of including payments at all is a big barrier for the majority of people who fill out forums and communities so it's not just a handful of people clout chasing the void.

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

#517

Post by dotancohen »

OhioMan2943 wrote: post #384
dotancohen wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're ignoring political incentive such as the anti-Israel drives. They will certainly flood discussions with by-the-way offhand mentions of "Israeli brutality" in otherwise seemingly innocuous comments on other subjects. There was a spate of this last year, then it subsided, and I would not be surprised to see another wave come, this time automated.

There are many people who have genuine concerns about Israeli issues, such as the election of leaders who prioritise those of one faith over another, the targeted striking of Al Jazeera offices in Palestine, and the eviction of Palestinian citizens from the West Bank https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-63660566 . It would be false to assume that brutality of one site absolves the other of criticism for the s…

You bolster my point.

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

#519

Post by bombcar »

prox wrote: post #514
bombcar wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My gauge is how predictable it is - I can predict how a Reddit thread will go 90% of the time it seems, maybe even a 4chan thread 80% of the time. The value of a community is in the unpredictability and HN has a good percentage of that, and I can choose to ignore the threads that will be predictable (though it can be fun to read them sometimes).

That’s mostly the default subs tho, like worldnews, funny and so on. The first three comments are whatever the previous three comments where in the previous thread on the same topic. Subs like r/askhistorians has a brutal moderation where the only parent comments are well sourced informed ones. But in general I agree on its predictability.

Yeah the upvote/karma system in general leads itself to "easy" replies, which quickly become recycled jokes and memes.

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

#520

Post by mdp2021 »

jacquesm wrote: post #512
mdp2021 wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> on the scale of human intellect Where is the module that produces approximations to true and subtle insights about matters? Where is the "critical thinking" plugin, how is it vetted? How do you value intelligence: on the form, or on the content? Take two Authors: how do you decide which one is more intelligent? > the progression of computer chess ?! Those are solvers superseded by different, more effective solvers…

Well, for starters we could take your comment and compare it to GPT-3 output to see which one makes more sense.

> compare

Exactly. Which one "/seems/ to make sense" and which one has the "juice".

Also: are you insinuating anything? Do you believe your post is appropriate?

Edit: but very clearly you misunderstood my post: not only as you suggest with your (very avoidable) expression, but also in fact. Because my point implied that "a good intellectual proposal should not happen by chance": modules should be implemented for it. Even if S (for Simplicius) said something doubtful - which is found copiously even in our already "selected" pages -, and engine E constructed something which /reports/ some insight, that would be chancey, random, irrelevant - not the way we are supposed to build things.

Post reply on HN