4 ms·
I agree, it's simply blunt. But if they had said something like, "I suspect this post is written by GPT-3. Consider X, Y, Z sentence -- these are typical const
by dilap 6y ago
I agree, it's simply blunt.
But if they had said something like, "I suspect this post is written by GPT-3. Consider X, Y, Z sentence -- these are typical constructions of GPT-3 because of A," it probably would not have been down-voted.
- jeffbee 6y agoI guess. That an asymmetrical expectation, though. If we require a great effort to politely point out that a blog is devoid of substance, the spammers win. It's also a very important skill these days to understand when you are being manipulated by the tone police into supporting an extreme position, or at least not denouncing it. It's super easy to lure some HNer into espousing an essentially eugenicist position on race and IQ, which weirdly is a topic that always makes it to the front page on HN, but then if you go on to denounce their position as eugenicist, you'll be flagged. I think that inevitably leads to decline in the quality of a community because if you don't have shorthand for "this is autogenerated spam", "this is climate denial", "this is a conspiracy theory", or "this is racist" then you'll instead waste all of your time trying to politely refute the bullshit point by point.
- hackinthebochs 6y ago>If we require a great effort to politely point out that a blog is devoid of substance, the spammers win. But until spam becomes a problem on this site, it is premature to alter norms to protect against a non-issue.