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

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961

Post by waterhouse »

Freebytes wrote: post #949

Using AI to write content is seen so harshly because it violates the previously held social contract that it takes more effort to write messages than to read messages. If a person goes through the trouble of thinking out and writing an argument or message, then reading is a sufficient donation of time. However, with the recent chat based AI models, this agreement has been turned around. It is now easier to get a writ…

I guess, in theory, this can eventually be countered by people using LLM browser integrations to tell them whether comments are worth reading (and maybe to summarize long comments). Is anyone currently working on that? It might be interesting to see.

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

#962

Post by ghurtado »

mlhpdx wrote: post #950
Freebytes wrote: post #949

Using AI to write content is seen so harshly because it violates the previously held social contract that it takes more effort to write messages than to read messages. If a person goes through the trouble of thinking out and writing an argument or message, then reading is a sufficient donation of time. However, with the recent chat based AI models, this agreement has been turned around. It is now easier to get a writ…

Where does the line fall? I can use an LLM to help form new and novel thoughts into prose, right? To structure and present it in conventional language rather than stream of thought. Is that disrespectful? It doesn't feel so.

> Is that disrespectful

It is, by way of being extremely dishonest in at least two ways:

- there's no way you would do this if you were required to disclose that you used an LLM to write your comment.

- therefore, if your primary goal isn't communication, then you must be doing it to look smart and "win" the conversation

Same reason people desperately post links to scientific papers they don't understand in a frantic attempt to stay on top of some imaginary debate.

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

#963

Post by ghurtado »

strangattractor wrote: post #951
Freebytes wrote: post #949

Using AI to write content is seen so harshly because it violates the previously held social contract that it takes more effort to write messages than to read messages. If a person goes through the trouble of thinking out and writing an argument or message, then reading is a sufficient donation of time. However, with the recent chat based AI models, this agreement has been turned around. It is now easier to get a writ…

This reads as an AI comment to me. Anybody else?

On 4chan, a long time ago, comments like these would invariably get the reply "not ur personal army"

Think about that for a minute. 4chan would make fun of the comment you just made.

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

#964

Post by mitchitized »

You're absolutely right!

(Sorry, couldn't resist.) I could be the lone dissenter here, but to me well-written comments are a lot more fun to read than near-gibberish.

I wished more people tried harder to be better communicators, but it is what it is. If AI can decipher these comments and produce a much more coherent statement, then I'm for it.

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

#965

Post by ericmcer »

Freebytes wrote: post #949

Using AI to write content is seen so harshly because it violates the previously held social contract that it takes more effort to write messages than to read messages. If a person goes through the trouble of thinking out and writing an argument or message, then reading is a sufficient donation of time. However, with the recent chat based AI models, this agreement has been turned around. It is now easier to get a writ…

Well just have an AI read it for you then!

That reminds me of the gmail LLM usage where AI can writes your emails for you and also summarize incoming ones. Maybe we lost the thread somewhere...

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

#966

Post by ericmcer »

meiuqer wrote: post #191

I feel a little bit of irony in this post of a company/forum that is asking its users to not use AI while simultaneously trying to fund countless companies that are responsible for ruining the internet as we speak.

No one will ever think that lying that AI output is your own unique creation is a good thing.

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

#967

Post by dredmorbius »

strangattractor wrote: post #951
Freebytes wrote: post #949

Using AI to write content is seen so harshly because it violates the previously held social contract that it takes more effort to write messages than to read messages. If a person goes through the trouble of thinking out and writing an argument or message, then reading is a sufficient donation of time. However, with the recent chat based AI models, this agreement has been turned around. It is now easier to get a writ…

This reads as an AI comment to me. Anybody else?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46832601>

Email mods instead: hn@ycombinator.com

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

#968

Post by patrickmay »

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…

> Sometimes we use . . . Oxford commas.

Good writers ALWAYS use the Oxford comma.

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

#969

Post by ljm »

waterhouse wrote: post #961
Freebytes wrote: post #949

Using AI to write content is seen so harshly because it violates the previously held social contract that it takes more effort to write messages than to read messages. If a person goes through the trouble of thinking out and writing an argument or message, then reading is a sufficient donation of time. However, with the recent chat based AI models, this agreement has been turned around. It is now easier to get a writ…

I guess, in theory, this can eventually be countered by people using LLM browser integrations to tell them whether comments are worth reading (and maybe to summarize long comments). Is anyone currently working on that? It might be interesting to see.

I don't believe that delegating reading comprehension to an LLM is really any better than delegating writing ability. In fact I'd argue it's worse to have an automation advising on what's worth reading or not.

There are a lot of people who have no time for something like Infinite Jest and even getting through the first few chapters is an effort. But at least they tried. An LLM excluding the possibility of reading this book because it is 1000 pages of postmodern absurdity effectively optimises away the fringes of human creativity and leaves only the average stuff behind.

AI slop detectors already exist and are no better than snake oil, because a person can have an LLM-smelling writing style without actually using AI. After all, LLMs were originally trained on human input.

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

#970

Post by pardon_me »

waterhouse wrote: post #961
Freebytes wrote: post #949

Using AI to write content is seen so harshly because it violates the previously held social contract that it takes more effort to write messages than to read messages. If a person goes through the trouble of thinking out and writing an argument or message, then reading is a sufficient donation of time. However, with the recent chat based AI models, this agreement has been turned around. It is now easier to get a writ…

I guess, in theory, this can eventually be countered by people using LLM browser integrations to tell them whether comments are worth reading (and maybe to summarize long comments). Is anyone currently working on that? It might be interesting to see.

First we would run into the spam-filter problem no different to email. Then we have to choose: do we concede to viewing the world through a lens of WhatEverAI, or train it locally on our own thoughts/views on the world, and hope that AI model is never compromised.
Post reply on HN