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

Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 1001 posts

Re: Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans

#621

Post by krapp »

RS-232 wrote: post #502

Sure, ban everyone that uses em dashes from the digital commons. That will certainly stop the existential threat to your livelihood. Sarcasm aside—there is no reliable way to prove this. So it begs the question: you really care if something is AI generated? Or is this just an another excuse to silence people you don’t like? You know, those people. The ones who didn’t win a full ride to or pay a fortune for a sheet of…

1) This isn't the digital commons.

2) We really care if something is AI generated.

3) Most people here aren't "those" people.

Re: Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans

#622

Post by krapp »

tromp wrote: post #9

Also please don't post accusations of comments reeking of AI.

We can now that it's an actual guideline. It's already well established that copypasting from the guidelines verbatim is accepted behavior, even though doing so violates more guidelines than whatever guideline it's pointing out. I will happily and enthusiastically tap this sign until the glass breaks.

Re: Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans

#623

Post by davorak »

rzmmm wrote: post #603
tzs wrote: post #573

How about comments that include AI output if labeled? Earlier today I remembered that there was a Supreme Court case I'd heard about 35 years ago that was relevant to on an ongoing HN discussion, but I could not remember the name of the case nor could I find it by Googling (Google kept finding later cases involving similar issues that were not relevant to what I was looking for). I asked Perplexity and given my recol…

Perplexity supports sharing URL to the thread. I think it's quite natural to link AI summaries like that.

I do not want to see posts to AI summaries with the AIs the way they are now. None I have used so far can cite sources correctly or verify its information. If the poster is not doing that verification then it is pushing that work on to the readers. If the poster did do the verifications than posting that verification is better than the ai summary.

Re: Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans

#625

Post by altairprime »

zahlman wrote: post #443
jedberg wrote: post #359

I'm absolutely 100% for this policy. My only caution is that good writers and LLMs look very similar, because LLMs were trained on a corpus of good writers. Good writers use semicolons and em-dashes. Sometimes we used bulleted lists or Oxford commas. So we should make sure to follow that other HN rule, and assume the person on the other end is a good faith actor, and be cautious about accusing someone of using AI. (I…

They look similar. In my experience, they do not read similar at all. You have to pay attention and actually try to appreciate what you're reading. Then, if you try and fail, it might not be your fault .

They do not read similiar to readers, an appellation not necessarily applicable to large swaths of the U.S. right now. Evidence of English composing skills is being assumed as AI because few younger than my middle-aged self can conceive of writing composition at the skill level demonstrated by AI being a human skill.

(This isn’t necessarily true for first world countries, which is why I describe it for the non-U.S. folks in particular.)

Re: Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans

#626

Post by threatofrain »

jedberg wrote: post #359

I'm absolutely 100% for this policy. My only caution is that good writers and LLMs look very similar, because LLMs were trained on a corpus of good writers. Good writers use semicolons and em-dashes. Sometimes we used bulleted lists or Oxford commas. So we should make sure to follow that other HN rule, and assume the person on the other end is a good faith actor, and be cautious about accusing someone of using AI. (I…

If you're looking for the odd visual artifact or textual tic then you're fighting a cat and mouse game that will change by the month. It's either easy to identify the soul of the human or it's not.

Re: Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans

#627

Post by tomhow »

CrzyLngPwd wrote: post #203

How will this be policed?

Same as all the other guidelines. Moderators look at the threads and act on what we see. We also look at lists of flagged comments, and emails sent to hn@ycombinator.com by community members. One-off offending comments are flagged+killed, and a warning given. Repeat offenders/obvious bots are banned.

Re: Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans

#628

Post by jnwatson »

tyg13 wrote: post #409
jedberg wrote: post #359

I'm absolutely 100% for this policy. My only caution is that good writers and LLMs look very similar, because LLMs were trained on a corpus of good writers. Good writers use semicolons and em-dashes. Sometimes we used bulleted lists or Oxford commas. So we should make sure to follow that other HN rule, and assume the person on the other end is a good faith actor, and be cautious about accusing someone of using AI. (I…

I don't really think that good writing and LLM writing looks all that similar. It's not always easy to spot (and maybe HN users aren't always doing a great job at it), but even the best LLM output tends to have an "LLM smell" to it that's hard to avoid. Like, sure, LLM writing is almost always grammatically correct, spelled correctly, formatted correctly, etc., which tends to be true of good writing. But there's a ce…

LLM writing is like AI-generated photos in that you don't notice the good instances of LLM writing, i.e. you don't know your false negative rate.

Re: Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans

#629

Post by lossyalgo »

rzmmm wrote: post #603
tzs wrote: post #573

How about comments that include AI output if labeled? Earlier today I remembered that there was a Supreme Court case I'd heard about 35 years ago that was relevant to on an ongoing HN discussion, but I could not remember the name of the case nor could I find it by Googling (Google kept finding later cases involving similar issues that were not relevant to what I was looking for). I asked Perplexity and given my recol…

Perplexity supports sharing URL to the thread. I think it's quite natural to link AI summaries like that.

How long do those links exist though? Until the author deletes it?
Post reply on HN