3 ms·

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...
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  No one is stopping conversation. We weren't allowed to have the coversation, because someone would rather outsource their efforts to AI, which isn't thoughtful or inspiring curiosity within the writer, regardless of the perception upon readers. It's lazy and it degrades the discourse because we're not interacting with the author of the comment when we read words that aren't theirs, and allows for those who use AI to simply say that the words were not their own, as if that abdicates them of responsibility for what they post under their own account/username. Not all AI comments are downvoted like this one was, which should tell you that this just wasn't a very good comment, AI or not.
  - dctoedt 2y ago
    > Not all AI comments are downvoted like this one was, which should tell you that this just wasn't a very good comment, AI or not. Please tell us your qualifications to judge whether my comment was a good one.
    - aspenmayer 2y ago
      The proof in the pudding is in the tasting. I'm making no judgement(s) at all. I'm observing that it was downvoted and flagged and is now dead, which is the judgement of HN collectively, not my own. If you feel that your comment is flagged in error, please contact hn@ycombinator.com It may have been a very fine comment in another context, but it appears to not have been a good comment on HN, as determined by HN. What other metric would apply?
- dang 2y ago
  People may be overreacting to some extent but that's better than succumbing to a deluge.

> 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...
aspenmayer 2y ago
No one is stopping conversation. We weren't allowed to have the coversation, because someone would rather outsource their efforts to AI, which isn't thoughtful or inspiring curiosity within the writer, regardless of the perception upon readers. It's lazy and it degrades the discourse because we're not interacting with the author of the comment when we read words that aren't theirs, and allows for those who use AI to simply say that the words were not their own, as if that abdicates them of responsibility for what they post under their own account/username. Not all AI comments are downvoted like this one was, which should tell you that this just wasn't a very good comment, AI or not.
- dctoedt 2y ago
  > Not all AI comments are downvoted like this one was, which should tell you that this just wasn't a very good comment, AI or not. Please tell us your qualifications to judge whether my comment was a good one.
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    The proof in the pudding is in the tasting. I'm making no judgement(s) at all. I'm observing that it was downvoted and flagged and is now dead, which is the judgement of HN collectively, not my own. If you feel that your comment is flagged in error, please contact hn@ycombinator.com It may have been a very fine comment in another context, but it appears to not have been a good comment on HN, as determined by HN. What other metric would apply?
dang 2y ago
People may be overreacting to some extent but that's better than succumbing to a deluge.