3 ms·
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,
by 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 agoAn 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 agoI 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 agoNothing'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 agoThe 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 agoAgree - 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.