491–500 of 500 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It breaks a central goal of HN, which is a non-siloed experience where the entire community is exposed to the same feed.
tags could be display only with no way of filtering for a certain tag.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We should try replacing forum mods with AI just for a while :)
I wish!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If counterfeit or stolen cash is indistinguishable from real or honest cash, should you accept it? Should you spend it? No. Why? Because doing so erodes and potentially destroys society. Whether you agree that a con artist is only a criminal if he gets caught, or you think he’s a criminal the whole time, surely you can see why many people might want to know if they are dealing with a friend and not something simulati…
bullshitting has never been a crime if it were, 90% of startups would be illegal and they founders jailable
Of course, Elon Musk makes many millions with his bullshit. I admit that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it is accurate and interesting, do you care who wrote it? Yes, because I have an interest in traces and mechanisms of human connections being preserved.
Thank you. I swear to god, it’s like half of the people on this site are fucked in the head socially. Like, of course it matters who wrote it - an author imparts parts of themself onto their work. That’s what makes writing that’s worth reading.
We don't allow genai text on HN itself - see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#generated and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079 . How to enforce it is a separate question, of course, but the rule exists. We don't have a similar rule yet about article content but my sense is that the community mostly doesn't want to read it—or, to put it more conservatively, discounts it. This is why we see s…
I think classifying it as an allergy or a status thing is a little too glib. I’ve read and reviewed, conservatively, hundreds of AI generated documents for work, and “written”/commissioned a bunch too. My biggest issue is that it’s impossible to engage with and give feedback on an AI written document, because it’s impossible to know whether misconceptions or gaps are because the author doesn’t understand the material…
This is well researched in both neuroscience and cognitive psychology.
But you are correct that it's also a feedback issue.
I don't read AI articles because if the writer didn't spend mental energy on it then why should I.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I do know is that users should flag articles that they think don't belong on HN If this is true then this statement should be added to the guidelines. Many a time I've seen a submission and thought "My god, this is the most moronic thing I've ever read in my life, nearly every single factual claim in this is wrong" but I don't flag it because "don't post utter drivel" is not in the guidelines.
What did you think flagging was for? (Genuine question) It's true that we don't spell things out precisely, but that's because it's impossible to spell things out fully precisely. If you start, where do you stop?
I'd be overjoyed if you told us you wanted us to flag that stuff.