How can HN actually moderate this though and prevent AI content from proliferating unchecked?
They can't. This is akin to security theater, which will just make the infractions less conspicuous (which is probably enough to appease most people).
Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans
981–990 of 1001 posts
Re: Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans
#982Haha. Was just thinking that as I was reading a comment! I was thinking, this argument is suspicously cogent!
This comment seems like it was written by AI.
Re: Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans
#983So is this the AI bubble popping? I expect Y Combinator to cease and revoke all funding of all companies that leverage LLM technologies that interact with humans. I wonder if there's an AI-hate movement in China.
China doesn't have the same copyright culture underlying most of the hate in the US, so I would be curious if the genAI haters within Chinese culture have more pragmatic reasons to dislike it.
Re: Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans
#984Conclusion: HN does not, for one, welcome their new AI overlords :)
Don't blame me, I voted for CowboyNeal
Re: Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans
#985Just speaking honestly This rule actually says "Don't admit when you are using AI to generate comments and don't admit when you are an AI" I know it's cynical, but this is as meaningful as reddit's "upvote/downvote is not an agree/disagree or like/dislike button" People may hate that this is true, but I cannot logically reason out how a rule like this could work. I think it's better to just accept that AI is now part…
In practice, the new rule is "don't be blatant when using AI".
It won't matter in a few years anyway.
Re: Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans
#986For quite a while, I like use LLM to refine and fix my grammar issue, but my colleagues and professors reminds me that it was way too obvious. They said they can tolerate some mistakes in my words, but no tolerance for AI generated content.
As a non native speaker, I sometimes use LLMs to search for a way to formulate my thoughts like I intend them to be received by the reader. I'd never just copy the verbatim LLM output somewhere, it always sounds blunt and not like me, but I gladly apply grammar corrections or better phrasing. I'd normally not do this for a text of this length, but just for fun, here's what ChatGPT suggests: As a non-native speaker, I…
I am in agreement with you, but regret that you missed an opportunity to swap two paragraphs around and purposefully mislabel them (i.e. the LLM-generated as your own, and vice versa). I'd be very curious if audience here would successfully pick it up!
Re: Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans
#987I dont post AI generate anything, but I do get snarky... Ahh shoot sorry guys I didn't even see the guidelines. I broke so many. Ill keep all that in mind.
Whats been happening in the world right know has really been getting to me and the bots or the people that support authoritarianism really makes me sad and angry that the world is being destroyed by careless people..
Re: Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans
#988Using 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…
[dead]
Re: Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans
#989[flagged]
Re: Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans
#990Using 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…
It's not just about the increase in volume, it's about the delta between the prompt and the generation.
If the generation merely restates the prompt (possibly in prettier, cleaner language), then usually it's the case that the prompt is shorter and more direct, though possibly less "correct" from a formal language perspective. I've seen friends send me LLM-generated stuff and when I asked to see the prompt, the prompts were honestly better. So why bother with the LLM?
But if you're using the LLM to generate information that goes beyond the prompt, then it's likely that you don't know what you're talking about. Because if you really did, you'd probably be comfortable with a brief note and instructions to go look the rest up on one's own. The desire to generate more comes from either laziness or else a desire to inflate one's own appearance. In either case, the LLM generation isn't terribly useful since anyone could get the same result from the prompt (again).
So I think LLMs contribute not just to a drowning out of human conversation but to semantic drift, because they encourage those of us who are less self-assured to lean into things without really understanding them. A danger in any time but certainly one that is more acute at the moment.