8 ms·

Sigh. We’re here as people asking other people who hopefully have expertise. If we wanted an AI summary we could get it from perplexity ourselves. I say this

Sigh. We’re here as people asking other people who hopefully have expertise. If we wanted an AI summary we could get it from perplexity ourselves. I say this as someone who actually builds and sells AI research software - but there’s a time and place for such things.

dctoedt 2y ago
[flagged]
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  Here’s the reason: Dang has said before that HN is not for bots or AI generated content.
  - dctoedt 2y ago
    > Dang has said before that HN is not for bots or AI generated content. I have a feeling that he meant something akin to spam, not to AI-assisted comments addressed to specific points.
    - dang 2y ago
      There are lot of grey areas; for example, your GP comment wasn't just generated—it came with an annotation that you're a lawyer and thought it was sound. That's better than a completely pasted comment. But it was probably still on the wrong side of the line. We want comments that the commenters actually write, as part of curious conversation between humans.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    And HNers have interpreted that as, "Any comment that even mentions the output of an LLM is radioactive toxic waste, regardless of its context or its appeal to the audience's sense of intellectual curiosity that is otherwise encouraged by the admins." As a result, a lot of thoughtful conversation threads are stopped in their tracks.
    - dctoedt 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - aspenmayer 2y ago
        It's not Ludditism. You're just making low-effort posts that are not appreciated on HN as evidenced by downvotes and past moderator statements. I don't even know what you're arguing for. Just write your own comments. You actions in this thread reflect poorly on yourself as a lawyer and upon the entire legal profession.
        dctoedt 2y ago
        Please cite your source for the supposed HN policy. I sometimes answer nonlawyers' questions about how the law works; my answers often attract upvotes. If purists insist on downvoting AI-assisted answers, I can live with that.
        aspenmayer 2y ago
        I've asked dang to find the citation for us. > If purists insist on downvoting AI-assisted answers, I can live with that. I'm no purist. I have seen AI comments that have genuinely been helpful on here, so I don't know what else to say, other than that I also have had to accept that sometimes HN doesn't roll the way I'd like either, but it's still the best place to post online the vast majority of the time. To your original point: > I see no reason to spend non-billable time writing an evanescent answer to a very-general question. Perplexity did a quite-serviceable job in just a few seconds. I don't think posting on HN is meant to be measured in time, but in impact. I don't come here to read AI comments, but human comments. I'd wager the same is true of nearly everyone here, including you.
        aspenmayer 2y ago
        I got this in email from dang just now, but I asked him to chime in so he may have something else or additional to say. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22generated%20comments%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
- singleshot_ 2y ago
  I’m a lawyer and I would not be comfortable doing this outside of perhaps the message board context.
  - dctoedt 2y ago
    > I’m a lawyer and I would not be comfortable doing this outside of perhaps the message board context. Why is that? I flatter myself that it provides useful content for readers, and there's approximately zero chance that it could ever lead to any kind of malpractice liability. (My perspective might be influenced by the fact that I've done a lot of law-related teaching over the course of my career, for both lawyers and non-lawyers, and have never had even a whisper of an issue on that score.)
    - singleshot_ 2y ago
      Doing this in the message board context: very low risk as you said. Don’t disagree at all. Downside risk: lots of downvotes. Who cares. Doing this in the paid legal advice realm: why not at least ask Westlaw, which your insurance carrier would be less allergic to? Asking a general purpose chat it seems like it’s asking for trouble. Helping people understand the law: pretty cool however biased I may be.
      - dctoedt 2y ago
        > Doing this in the paid legal advice realm We're on the same page: I can't imagine giving paid legal advice without doing the usual research and citing the usual cases, for no other reason than to confirm what I think I know.
        singleshot_ 2y ago
        That’s squared up with me. I would not trust myself to second guess Peplexity without researching and at that point why am I messing around slash wrecking a/c priv? But good on you for giving layman’s style explanations. I do think that’s good work.

dctoedt 2y ago

[flagged]

aspenmayer 2y ago
Here’s the reason: Dang has said before that HN is not for bots or AI generated content.
- dctoedt 2y ago
  > Dang has said before that HN is not for bots or AI generated content. I have a feeling that he meant something akin to spam, not to AI-assisted comments addressed to specific points.
  - dang 2y ago
    There are lot of grey areas; for example, your GP comment wasn't just generated—it came with an annotation that you're a lawyer and thought it was sound. That's better than a completely pasted comment. But it was probably still on the wrong side of the line. We want comments that the commenters actually write, as part of curious conversation between humans.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  And HNers have interpreted that as, "Any comment that even mentions the output of an LLM is radioactive toxic waste, regardless of its context or its appeal to the audience's sense of intellectual curiosity that is otherwise encouraged by the admins." As a result, a lot of thoughtful conversation threads are stopped in their tracks.
  - dctoedt 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - aspenmayer 2y ago
      It's not Ludditism. You're just making low-effort posts that are not appreciated on HN as evidenced by downvotes and past moderator statements. I don't even know what you're arguing for. Just write your own comments. You actions in this thread reflect poorly on yourself as a lawyer and upon the entire legal profession.
      - dctoedt 2y ago
        Please cite your source for the supposed HN policy. I sometimes answer nonlawyers' questions about how the law works; my answers often attract upvotes. If purists insist on downvoting AI-assisted answers, I can live with that.
        aspenmayer 2y ago
        I've asked dang to find the citation for us. > If purists insist on downvoting AI-assisted answers, I can live with that. I'm no purist. I have seen AI comments that have genuinely been helpful on here, so I don't know what else to say, other than that I also have had to accept that sometimes HN doesn't roll the way I'd like either, but it's still the best place to post online the vast majority of the time. To your original point: > I see no reason to spend non-billable time writing an evanescent answer to a very-general question. Perplexity did a quite-serviceable job in just a few seconds. I don't think posting on HN is meant to be measured in time, but in impact. I don't come here to read AI comments, but human comments. I'd wager the same is true of nearly everyone here, including you.
        aspenmayer 2y ago
        I got this in email from dang just now, but I asked him to chime in so he may have something else or additional to say. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20%22generated%20comments%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
singleshot_ 2y ago
I’m a lawyer and I would not be comfortable doing this outside of perhaps the message board context.
- dctoedt 2y ago
  > I’m a lawyer and I would not be comfortable doing this outside of perhaps the message board context. Why is that? I flatter myself that it provides useful content for readers, and there's approximately zero chance that it could ever lead to any kind of malpractice liability. (My perspective might be influenced by the fact that I've done a lot of law-related teaching over the course of my career, for both lawyers and non-lawyers, and have never had even a whisper of an issue on that score.)
  - singleshot_ 2y ago
    Doing this in the message board context: very low risk as you said. Don’t disagree at all. Downside risk: lots of downvotes. Who cares. Doing this in the paid legal advice realm: why not at least ask Westlaw, which your insurance carrier would be less allergic to? Asking a general purpose chat it seems like it’s asking for trouble. Helping people understand the law: pretty cool however biased I may be.
    - dctoedt 2y ago
      > Doing this in the paid legal advice realm We're on the same page: I can't imagine giving paid legal advice without doing the usual research and citing the usual cases, for no other reason than to confirm what I think I know.
      - singleshot_ 2y ago
        That’s squared up with me. I would not trust myself to second guess Peplexity without researching and at that point why am I messing around slash wrecking a/c priv? But good on you for giving layman’s style explanations. I do think that’s good work.