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

741–750 of 1001 posts

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

#741

Post by tadfisher »

ninjagoo wrote: post #730

Lot of folks on here saying they only want to converse with other humans, for various reasons. But here's the funny thing. I'm pretty sure the frontier models are now smarter than I am, more eloquent, and definitely more knowledgeable, especially the paid versions with built-in search/research capability. I'm also fairly certain that the number of original thoughts in a given discourse on the Internet is fairly small…

Nothing is stopping you from pasting an HN link into your chatbot of choice for an "informed" discussion.

The rest of us want the benefit of lived experience and genuine curiosity in discussions. LLMs are fundamentally incapable of both.

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

#742

Post by ninjagoo »

dang wrote: post #426
arrsingh wrote: post #381

There should be a "flag as AI" link in addition to "flag" and then a setting for people to show flagged as AI. Once the flagged as AI reaches a certain threshold then it disappears unless you enable "Show AI". Maybe once enough posts have been flagged like that then that corpus could be used to train an AI to automatically detect content generated by AI. That would be cool. Maybe the HN site wouldn't add this feature…

We're going to add that. I've resisted adding reasons-for-flagging for years, but even I can change my mind every decade or so. A nice side effect is that it will double as a confirmation step, solving the FFF (fat finger flagging) problem.

Will there be a process or opportunity for mis-flagged comments' posters to prove their comment was human generated?

Or will they have to simply eat the karma hit and move on?

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

#743

Post by js8 »

GMoromisato wrote: post #272

I'm here to read what actual humans think. If I wanted to read what an LLM thinks, I could just ask it. But here's where it gets tricky: Do I prefer low-effort, off-the-top-of-my-head reactions, as long as it is human? Or do I want an insightful, well-thought-out response, even if it is LLM-enhanced? Am I here to read authentic humans because I value authenticity for its own sake (like preferring Champagne instead of…

I agree there is a dichotomy. I personally think AIs are better debaters than humans, at the very least in their ability to make less logical mistakes and have wider knowledge. I would suggest everyone should run their thoughts through an AI to get a constructive critique, it would certainly reduce lot of time wasted.

And I find the decision to "ban" AI slightly ironic, when HN has a disdain (unlike its predecessor Slashdot) for funny or sarcastic comments, which require the reader to think more, rather than having a clear argument handed on a silver platter. I mean, it is what truly human communication is like - deliberately not always crystal clear.

I suspect that HN will eventually be replaced by an AI-moderated site, because it will have more quality content.

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

#744

Post by caditinpiscinam »

ninjagoo wrote: post #730

Lot of folks on here saying they only want to converse with other humans, for various reasons. But here's the funny thing. I'm pretty sure the frontier models are now smarter than I am, more eloquent, and definitely more knowledgeable, especially the paid versions with built-in search/research capability. I'm also fairly certain that the number of original thoughts in a given discourse on the Internet is fairly small…

This reminds me of conversations around plagiarism that come up when working with students: that question of "this other person expressed this idea better than I can, why can't I just use their writing"?

Because I want to know what you think, because putting our thoughts into words and sharing them is an important part of thinking, because we'll lose these skills if we don't use them, because in thinking for yourself you might come up with something interesting that nobody has ever thought before.

Of course, writers are allowed to reference and use other peoples writing: with proper attribution. I don't have a problem with people sharing quality AI generated content when it's labelled as such. The issue is that most people writing AI comments don't do this, which is itself probably the strongest indictment of the practice.

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

#745

Post by caditinpiscinam »

We've all heard the phrase "the sum of all human knowledge".

I've been feeling more and more that generative AI represents the average of all human knowledge. Which has its place. But a future in which all thought and creativity is averaged away is a bleak one. It's the heat death of thought.

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

#748

Post by happytoexplain »

charlie0 wrote: post #746

That comment is nice, but virtually meaningless as there's no way to enforce it, even if there were mods.

Unenforceable guidelines are not meaningless unless humans are all without care, in which case why would you even want to be talking to them in the first place.

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

#749

Post by weird-eye-issue »

DonThomasitos wrote: post #62

The irony is that this guide is written like a system prompt. We‘re all working with LLMs too much these days.

I'm tired of people commenting on every article about how it's so obviously AI but you've gone and switched it up and now you are claiming something a decade old is a system prompt. Nice work!

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

#750

Post by RevEng »

Someone1234 wrote: post #84

"AI-edited comments" is a very interesting one. Where is the line between a spelling/grammar/tone checker like Grammarly, that at minimum use N-Grams behind the scenes, and something that is "AI" edited? What I am asking is, is "AI" in this context fully featured LLMs, or anything that improves communication via an automated system. I think many people have used these "advanced" spellcheckers for years before Chatgpt…

I agree on the editing. We use these things all the time - chances are many of you are using it right now as you type on your phone and it checks your spelling for you.

By the same token, what if I have a human editor help me out? What if we go back and forth on how to write something, including spelling, grammar, tone, etc. For example, my wife occasionally asks me to review her messages before sending them because she thinks I speak well and wants to be understood correctly.

The problem is that we are punishing the technology, not the result. Whether it's a human or an LLM that acts as your editor should be irrelevant; what matters is that you are posting your own work and not someone else's. My wife having me write all of her messages for her would be just as dishonest as her having an LLM write all of her messages for her if she always presented them as her own writing. But if she writes the copy and I provide suggests for changes, what's the harm in that? And why should it matter if it's a human or an LLM that provides that assistance?

Post reply on HN