3 ms·

I found this useful and don’t understand the downvotes.

Pixie_Dust 3y ago
> I found this useful and don’t understand the downvotes. It's easier to downvote than post a refutation /s
pocketarc 3y ago
I would assume the downvotes are because the comment is GPT-generated. People come here for the community's comments and insights, not for GPT's summarisations, even if you yourself find them useful. I personally agree with the downvotes - I don't want to see every HN post littered with "this is what GPT-4 has to say about this".
- Villodre 3y ago
  An excellent answer - the very same kind of post I come here to read and not the very same machine-generated content that's everywhere in the Net ;-)
- MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
  I think an AI summary, clearly marked as such, can be just as useful as the obligatory Archive link. I understand the aversion against „AI spam“, but I find it weird that a supposed tech community rejects AI tech wholesale.
  - valvar 3y ago
    Nothing's stopping users who want an AI summary from feeding the content into their favourite GPT. But it's not contributing anything meaningful to a HN discussion.
  - viraptor 3y ago
    The archive link is useful, because it provides you a way to access the page itself. Nobody here has subscriptions to every single service, so if there's something paywalled, that link is useful to almost everyone person. (And I wish HN did it automatically) A lazy gpt summary is not that.
  - Closi 3y ago
    Agree - possibly this is even an example of how to do it? Clearly labelled as LLM generated and used to summarise a long RFC (where I personally didn’t find the abstract as clear as GPTs summary). But everyone will have their own views on this. There is definitely a lot of anti-AI or anti-LLM scepticism or denial on HN.
rwiggins 3y ago
IMO, an LLM-generated summary is almost never a useful post without further comment. I don't trust current LLMs to correctly summarize complicated and nuanced text. Now, if someone with the relevant expertise wanted to carefully read an article, feed it into an LLM for a summary, verify its correctness, and post that, I'd be alright with it. Or if the summary is interesting in some other way - like is it super wrong? or does it make interesting leaps? or maybe it is startlingly correct? - then sure, share it, but also share why it's interesting.
viraptor 3y ago
There's literally an abstract at the top of this document which provides a summary. If you want more, you can feed it into chatgpt (or many other services) yourself, same as everyone here. There's no reason to post a summary as an unsolicited comment.
- mkmk3 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure we often see the abstract posted as a comment for a quick summary, and I don't see it downvoted as hard. Not everyone goes through the link. But sure, they could have just posted that instead of going through GPT. Doesn't really matter much imo.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    If you use the abstract from the document, then you know multiple people attempted to make it accurate, rather than zero people.

> I found this useful and don’t understand the downvotes. It's easier to downvote than post a refutation /s

I would assume the downvotes are because the comment is GPT-generated. People come here for the community's comments and insights, not for GPT's summarisations, even if you yourself find them useful. I personally agree with the downvotes - I don't want to see every HN post littered with "this is what GPT-4 has to say about this".

Villodre 3y ago
An excellent answer - the very same kind of post I come here to read and not the very same machine-generated content that's everywhere in the Net ;-)
MrBuddyCasino 3y ago
I think an AI summary, clearly marked as such, can be just as useful as the obligatory Archive link. I understand the aversion against „AI spam“, but I find it weird that a supposed tech community rejects AI tech wholesale.
- valvar 3y ago
  Nothing's stopping users who want an AI summary from feeding the content into their favourite GPT. But it's not contributing anything meaningful to a HN discussion.
- viraptor 3y ago
  The archive link is useful, because it provides you a way to access the page itself. Nobody here has subscriptions to every single service, so if there's something paywalled, that link is useful to almost everyone person. (And I wish HN did it automatically) A lazy gpt summary is not that.
- Closi 3y ago
  Agree - possibly this is even an example of how to do it? Clearly labelled as LLM generated and used to summarise a long RFC (where I personally didn’t find the abstract as clear as GPTs summary). But everyone will have their own views on this. There is definitely a lot of anti-AI or anti-LLM scepticism or denial on HN.

rwiggins 3y ago

IMO, an LLM-generated summary is almost never a useful post without further comment. I don't trust current LLMs to correctly summarize complicated and nuanced text. Now, if someone with the relevant expertise wanted to carefully read an article, feed it into an LLM for a summary, verify its correctness, and post that, I'd be alright with it. Or if the summary is interesting in some other way - like is it super wrong? or does it make interesting leaps? or maybe it is startlingly correct? - then sure, share it, but also share why it's interesting.

viraptor 3y ago

There's literally an abstract at the top of this document which provides a summary. If you want more, you can feed it into chatgpt (or many other services) yourself, same as everyone here. There's no reason to post a summary as an unsolicited comment.

mkmk3 3y ago
I'm pretty sure we often see the abstract posted as a comment for a quick summary, and I don't see it downvoted as hard. Not everyone goes through the link. But sure, they could have just posted that instead of going through GPT. Doesn't really matter much imo.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  If you use the abstract from the document, then you know multiple people attempted to make it accurate, rather than zero people.