Don’t use AI to write things that you present as your own work • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by torben-friis » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 1:52 PM UTC

em-bee wrote: post #48

torben-friis wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>the work of the editor does have value. it's just a different value.

I mostly agree with that, with some caveats (in short, there's an uncomfortably thin line to appropriating the curated work, consciously or not).

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

I'd be comfortable saying at least that it's less misleading to declare that book as written by Hemingway. Doing so is more in line with the social expectations that come with having the author's signature on it.

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

#52

Post by anupshinde » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 4:23 PM UTC

satisfice wrote: post #40

anupshinde wrote: post #10

When I write something heavily edited by AI - I mention that I use AI assistance (not AI led thinking). I will probably remove that because the perception is quite different. Its like applying one applying to an engineering job but write "a pychic, a medium" in a corner of their resume. It is very common to see that any interesting thought gets immediately tagged like AI slop and the real AI slop wins. Try an A/B tes…

I don’t use autocomplete, either. But if I did that would not be hypocritical. Autocomplete does not operate on the level of key ideas. The “humans are just as bad” argument holds no water. Humans have many infirmities, but you can form relationships of trust with people who earn trust and deserve it. You can hold people accountable, personally and publicly. With the exception of rare criminals and the severely menta…

I did not say “humans are just as bad.” That is your assumption. I didn’t even say AI is bad. I use AI quite a lot.

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

#53

Post by beej71 » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 5:02 PM UTC

We should be better than genAI. For me, with things like coding and writing, I think I'm better than it. For painting? It wins over me. But I'd never in a million years claim creation of a painting I prompted, even if I went and modified it after. Same with code or writing, for that matter.

For the record, I never use AI in writing. First, it's no fun, and that's really reason enough. It'd be like sending a bot to watch a movie for me. Second, I'm better than it is, and it would just be an exercise in frustration micromanaging its every word. I might as well just type what I want it to say.

And third, most importantly, who would read anything I wrote if they could just generate it themselves? The goal is to be better.

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

#54

Post by classified » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 5:57 PM UTC

beej71 wrote: post #53

We should be better than genAI. For me, with things like coding and writing, I think I'm better than it. For painting? It wins over me. But I'd never in a million years claim creation of a painting I prompted, even if I went and modified it after. Same with code or writing, for that matter. For the record, I never use AI in writing. First, it's no fun, and that's really reason enough. It'd be like sending a bot to wa…

> And third, most importantly, who would read anything I wrote if they could just generate it themselves?

This should be embarrassingly obvious to everyone, but allegedly there are hoards of vibecoders and other slop producers to whom it never occurs (if it's not astroturfers pretending to be that). If prompt slinging is your only expertise, you already are redundant.

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

#55

Post by dang » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 6:13 PM UTC

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.

I don't think this is accurate. The key sentence is "don’t use AI to write things for you that you present as your own work". This leaves many other ways to use AI.

I've put that sentence in the title above because (per https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) it seems less misleading.

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

#56

Post by AnodicElegy » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 7:07 PM UTC

If an LLM is used in the drafting of an article, this should, at least, be disclosed, preferably at the beginning of the article. For example, I recently came across this article ( https://thedispatch.com/article/affordability-crisis-healthc... ). The LLM voice was suppressed well enough until this inane passage:

"One number. Four completely different stories. The number is engineered to include all of them, because including all of them is what produces the 49 percent."

I decided to fact-check a statement ("CNN’s May 2026 survey found the share of Americans spontaneously naming gas prices as their top economic problem rose from 5 percent to 23 percent in a single year, with food costs cited almost as often") and it was incorrect (food costs were in fact cited more often than gas prices). Since the first thing I checked was wrong, I decided it wasn't worth my time reading the rest of the article. It was, as they say these days, slop.

It felt like a little bit of my time had been stolen. If a disclosure had been at the top, it would have been more of a caveat emptor situation.

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

#57

Post by lordforever » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 7:15 PM UTC

basically disclosed public ai undisclosed private ai this only works, any thing public should be disclosed you can do anything when you are working locally as you know but it should be explicitly discloses as soon as it goes public.

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

#58

Post by scotty79 » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 7:46 PM UTC

> 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.

If the author of this write up actually used AI for writing he would have way more than just word. Because you can definitely tell AI output that somebody put no effort into from output that somebody put in a ton of effort into.

It can be as much of a difference as between artistic photograph and a photo from a photo-trap installed in the forest or from a speed camera.

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

#59

Post by scotty79 » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 8:00 PM UTC

beej71 wrote: post #53

We should be better than genAI. For me, with things like coding and writing, I think I'm better than it. For painting? It wins over me. But I'd never in a million years claim creation of a painting I prompted, even if I went and modified it after. Same with code or writing, for that matter. For the record, I never use AI in writing. First, it's no fun, and that's really reason enough. It'd be like sending a bot to wa…

[flagged]

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

#60

Post by SaucyWrong » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 8:33 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #59

beej71 wrote: post #53

We should be better than genAI. For me, with things like coding and writing, I think I'm better than it. For painting? It wins over me. But I'd never in a million years claim creation of a painting I prompted, even if I went and modified it after. Same with code or writing, for that matter. For the record, I never use AI in writing. First, it's no fun, and that's really reason enough. It'd be like sending a bot to wa…

[flagged]

It was difficult to finish reading your post after you put the OP down for stating that they believe they're more original and more capable than an LLM. Maybe leave that part out next time, or at least don't lead with it. It does not help your argument the way you think it does.

I wonder why you would mince your words about LLM use at all though. Instead of couching your methods in language like, "I 'built' a program," or, "I've 'crafted' a novel," you ought to just put your money where your mouth is and say, "I used LLMs to make [something]."

If want to be up-front and proud about the fact that you use LLMs in your work, just dot that without indirection or ornamentation. Wear that attitude on your sleeve and let your audience determine if your work is worth their attention.