Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don’t use AI to write things that you present as your own work

satisfice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 108 posts

Re: Don’t use AI to write things that you present as your own work

#41

Post by ElProlactin »

BrenBarn wrote: post #33
ElProlactin wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are asking many readers to do substantial amount of work for something nobody potentially put any effort into. This is the fundamental imbalance. Much like answering unknown numbers, reading articles from new sources has become a time wasting trap. But AI is only the latest continuation of what you're describing. The internet has been full of slop (clickbait, SEO-bait, etc.) and propaganda/disinformation for ma…

I don't see this article as inconsistent with exercising critical thought. In a sense, this policy the author is describing is itself an exercise of critical thought. And it's one way of narrowing the sources from which they consume content. Exercising critical thought involves noticing patterns and developing heuristics and rubrics to judge things. That's entirely compatible with what the article describes.

Saying "if you use AI and don't tell me, you're a liar and if you use AI and tell me, I won't trust anything you write" is not critical thought. It's a sledgehammer filter and basically impossible to apply because there is virtually no way in 2026 to identify the provenance of any content you consume.

The likelihood that the author has consumed and trusted content that was produced using AI in some form, and not even realized it, is close to 100%. It's literally everywhere these days, and not everyone using it is using it to do all the work. But it leaves little hints that it was involved.

There are frequently posts that hit the front page of HN that have numerous AI fingerprints that produce discussion devoid of any comments questioning whether they were produced using AI. And HNers are probably one of the groups more likely than the general population to be able to identify AI content.

Re: Don’t use AI to write things that you present as your own work

#42

Post by ElProlactin »

numpad0 wrote: post #38
ElProlactin wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, but I don't think there's anything particularly insightful about the author's perspective. People are allowed to set their expectations/standards but in 2026 taking the position that use of AI is lying (when not disclosed) and trust destroying (when disclosed) is basically going to set you up for a lot of disappointment. It's just unrealistic. For better or worse, AI is being used everywhere and it's ha…

> it's harder and harder to spot, especially when the use is "thoughtful". It's not, only suckers think otherwise. The more you consume, the easier it gets to spot them, and also you get bored of it quicker. Which is fine for an actual tool. IMO: if you think it's problematic if people could spot AI tool marks, you're not actually viewing or using AI as a tool. Rocket scientists aren't ashamed of using high end 5-axi…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48609233

This was on the front page for a while yesterday. A decent amount of discussion. I'm quite sure this was produced using AI.

I was the only person who mentioned it.

AI is really easy to spot if it's being used to do all the work. It's less easy to spot when it's being used as a starting point, for editorial passes, concept development, argument refinement, etc.

Re: Don’t use AI to write things that you present as your own work

#43

Post by satisfice »

ElProlactin wrote: post #2

AI could have helped the author write what he's trying to say in one three word sentence: don't use AI. Because in his view, if you use AI and don't disclose it, you're a liar. And if you use AI and disclose it, he won't trust you anyway.

If you are serious, then AI has already begin to rot your brain.

My post was much more than saying “don’t use AI.”

I use AI. I even use AI adjacent to my writing. But with me, you always know that my written words are directly from me. They sound like me. I pretty much write how I talk, albeit more grammatically.

My post was about why you are taking a big risk with your reputation/brand if you let AI draft your written communication on your behalf.

Re: Don’t use AI to write things that you present as your own work

#44

Post by praash »

The conclusion conflicts oddly with the author's arguments and interests. Attributing LLM usage would actually help the author avoid articles even touched by LLMs, but they indirectly admit being haphazardly dismissive.

Their arguments are mostly addressed by proper, clear attribution. "My sister helped with my homework essay" deserves distrust withour further clarification.

Comparing LLM usage to lying is a fun perspective, but most of the lying happens in attribution. Their moral against lying also seems silly.

Re: Don’t use AI to write things that you present as your own work

#45

Post by skeledrew »

BrenBarn wrote: post #7
ElProlactin wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, but I don't think there's anything particularly insightful about the author's perspective. People are allowed to set their expectations/standards but in 2026 taking the position that use of AI is lying (when not disclosed) and trust destroying (when disclosed) is basically going to set you up for a lot of disappointment. It's just unrealistic. For better or worse, AI is being used everywhere and it's ha…

> People are allowed to set their expectations/standards but in 2026 taking the position that use of AI is lying (when not disclosed) and trust destroying (when disclosed) is basically going to set you up for a lot of disappointment. It's just unrealistic. Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.

Likely will be in for a life of much dissatisfaction.

Re: Don’t use AI to write things that you present as your own work

#46

Post by ElProlactin »

satisfice wrote: post #43
ElProlactin wrote: post #2

AI could have helped the author write what he's trying to say in one three word sentence: don't use AI. Because in his view, if you use AI and don't disclose it, you're a liar. And if you use AI and disclose it, he won't trust you anyway.

If you are serious, then AI has already begin to rot your brain. My post was much more than saying “don’t use AI.” I use AI. I even use AI adjacent to my writing. But with me, you always know that my written words are directly from me. They sound like me. I pretty much write how I talk, albeit more grammatically. My post was about why you are taking a big risk with your reputation/brand if you let AI draft your writt…

> If you are serious, then AI has already begin to rot your brain.

First, it's not a good look to start off your rebuttal with an ad hominem. Based on the high standards you speak to in your post, and your concern about reputations, I would have expected more.

> I use AI. I even use AI adjacent to my writing. But with me, you always know that my written words are directly from me. They sound like me. I pretty much write how I talk, albeit more grammatically.

To play the role of cynic, what does "AI adjacent to my writing" even mean? You wrote in your post:

> If AI deeply collaborates with you to write something, why am I saying you shouldn’t say you used AI? Because all I have is your word for it that you did any work at all.

Who decides if your "adjacent" use of AI was deep or meaningful? You wrote:

> Unless I know exactly how you did that work– which would have to have been from personal observation– I can’t know the truth.

You're admitting that you use AI but only "adjacent to [your] writing". Even if you explain what that means, how can I trust you? I wasn't there to personally observe how you used AI.

If you consult with AI in any fashion to flesh out an idea, test your arguments, etc., someone with an even more extreme position could say, "Well, even if he wrote the words, AI must have influenced his writing in some way, perhaps even unconsciously, and therefore everything he wrote is tainted."

Re: Don’t use AI to write things that you present as your own work

#48

Post by em-bee »

torben-friis wrote: post #37
dist-epoch wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can get access to the LLM without you. And you can read a car maintenance book. That doesn't mean you can fix your car now. The author vouched the LLM output using their experience, that's what you get. Unless you are as experienced in their domain, it will take you time to figure out if the output of your LLM prompt is correct or non-sense.

Yeah, the somelier argument. It doesn't work for me sorry, because you wouldn't accept a book by John, a friend of Hemingway, as a Hemingway book no matter how much he assisted in editing. Nor a Picasso museum exhibition is by Marie because Marie chose which paintings to display. Authorship and edition are different claims.

they are, but when i read a scifi magazine like clarkesworld, i can trust that the editor made a good selection of stories. the work of the editor does have value. it's just a different value.

and how do you handle the reverse? use AI as the editor for a hemmingway book. is it still hemmingway?

Re: Don’t use AI to write things that you present as your own work

#49

Post by em-bee »

torben-friis wrote: post #12

I think the argument is misguided, even if I agree with the principle: it is based in the effort one puts in and how it's similar to a sport. I don't care whether my favorite author sweated for months facing a typewriter, of he effortlessly dictated the final form of the book in one sitting to a secretary while sipping mojitos. I think my issue with AI has more to do with the signal it sends: reading takes effort, pa…

i don't get your point. am i reading the article in a different way?

my reading is: if you use AI to help you write, then i can't know how much of the work is yours and how much is AI. therefore, when AI helps i have to expect the worst and assume that it is mainly AI and your input is very little. consequently, don't use AI at all, or the work is no longer yours.

i think that's a pretty good argument. it's not about the effort you made but about the amount of control you have over the text. and, as you say, the signal it sends. so i think you agree more with the article than you say.

what is weird is the title: don't say you use AI for writing, but then in the text it says: don't lie. if you can't do either then you can't use AI for writing, so why not just say it directly: don't use AI to help you writing.

Re: Don’t use AI to write things that you present as your own work

#50

Post by torben-friis »

em-bee wrote: post #49
torben-friis wrote: post #12

I think the argument is misguided, even if I agree with the principle: it is based in the effort one puts in and how it's similar to a sport. I don't care whether my favorite author sweated for months facing a typewriter, of he effortlessly dictated the final form of the book in one sitting to a secretary while sipping mojitos. I think my issue with AI has more to do with the signal it sends: reading takes effort, pa…

i don't get your point. am i reading the article in a different way? my reading is: if you use AI to help you write, then i can't know how much of the work is yours and how much is AI. therefore, when AI helps i have to expect the worst and assume that it is mainly AI and your input is very little. consequently, don't use AI at all, or the work is no longer yours. i think that's a pretty good argument. it's not about…

I should have clarified or quoted, my bad. I was talking about the work references, mainly this paragraph:

>was I tempted to use AI to speed things up? No. It would be like hooking a motor to a stationary bike and calling that exercise. It would be like taking a helicopter to the top of Everest and saying that I summited.

Post reply on HN