4 ms·

Yes, but I would prefer that they either: 1. Add their own commentary, or 2. Don’t post at all I don’t think they would move to the latter group since they h

Yes, but I would prefer that they either: 1. Add their own commentary, or 2. Don’t post at all I don’t think they would move to the latter group since they have already gone to the effort of signposting their usage of ChatGPT.

Someone1234 2y ago
The problem with banning ChatGPT/et al entirely is that it is unenforceable. We've already witnessed multiple "AI detection" offerings that have such high false-positives that they're harmful (or human moderators that use their gut to ban stuff based on tone/or being too high effort). I myself have been victim of this, I used to post high quality bullet summaries of articles that took quite a while to create (I did the unthinkable: read the articles), I was doing this pre-LLMs for years but then got banned from three different popular subreddits within a few months after ChatGPTs initial release for posting "AI generated content" in spite of my account history. There is no way to prove something is hand-created. So you can create a rule to ban it, which you cannot enforce, and then you can create a rule to injure people who declare its usage but all you'll end up with is ChatGPT/et al generated content anyway and the honest dealers being pushed underground/replaced by dishonest ones. I'm sure HN will have a rule against AI generated content eventually. But except in cases where they outright admit it, it won't be possible to enforce, or they'll enforce it incorrectly on human content.
- satisfice 2y ago
  There are lots of things we can’t practically enforce but still make sense to uphold as norms. - Don’t tell lies. - Don’t post in bad faith. - Don’t cut and paste from Wikipedia as if it is your own writing. - Don’t post ChatGPT responses as if you wrote them. - Don’t post ChatGPT “opinions” even labeled as such.

4 ms·

Yes, but I would prefer that they either: 1. Add their own commentary, or 2. Don’t post at all I don’t think they would move to the latter group since they h

by fire_lake 2y ago

Someone1234 2y ago
The problem with banning ChatGPT/et al entirely is that it is unenforceable. We've already witnessed multiple "AI detection" offerings that have such high false-positives that they're harmful (or human moderators that use their gut to ban stuff based on tone/or being too high effort). I myself have been victim of this, I used to post high quality bullet summaries of articles that took quite a while to create (I did the unthinkable: read the articles), I was doing this pre-LLMs for years but then got banned from three different popular subreddits within a few months after ChatGPTs initial release for posting "AI generated content" in spite of my account history. There is no way to prove something is hand-created. So you can create a rule to ban it, which you cannot enforce, and then you can create a rule to injure people who declare its usage but all you'll end up with is ChatGPT/et al generated content anyway and the honest dealers being pushed underground/replaced by dishonest ones. I'm sure HN will have a rule against AI generated content eventually. But except in cases where they outright admit it, it won't be possible to enforce, or they'll enforce it incorrectly on human content.
- satisfice 2y ago
  There are lots of things we can’t practically enforce but still make sense to uphold as norms. - Don’t tell lies. - Don’t post in bad faith. - Don’t cut and paste from Wikipedia as if it is your own writing. - Don’t post ChatGPT responses as if you wrote them. - Don’t post ChatGPT “opinions” even labeled as such.