4 ms·

Oof. This comment originally had an introduction attributing the summary to Claude and immediately got downvoted to oblivion. Now it's been edited to remove the

Oof. This comment originally had an introduction attributing the summary to Claude and immediately got downvoted to oblivion. Now it's been edited to remove the attribution and it's resurrected (edit: gone again, so ignore me). Unintended perverse incentives...

semiquaver 2y ago
FWIW, I (a human) read the order and this is a pretty accurate summary.
- lolinder 2y ago
  I did as well and yes, it's fine. This is just a meta comment about what we're accidentally training people to do, not a critique of OP.
- PKop 2y ago
  Why is this relevant? Who want's "summaries" in the comments? We can all copy and paste ourselves, so spamming this nonsense is useless.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jcranmer 2y ago
Even without the attribution, it was still pretty clear to me that it was a chatbot-generated summary. No human who understands how the legal procedure works would introduce the summary in that way, as the court order is the preliminary injunction.
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  Even without the attribution, generated comments are against HN guidelines.
aspenmayer 2y ago
I’ve begged dang to specifically say that generated comments are against HN guidelines in the guidelines themselves, but as it stands, it’s still against guidelines, but only communicated in comments. I warned about the perverse incentives as well. It’s a pretty subpar status quo. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42224783 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42224783 https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=human%20generated%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
- artistic_regard 2y ago
  [dead]
M2Ys4U 2y ago
It still surprises me that people can't immediately spot that comments like that are slop. I don't know why it still surprises me, given the frequency at which it happens, but still.
tmsh 2y ago
I was not aware of the policy. My intent was to save people having to read the many pages when they just want a summary of the facts (and I don’t think most people necessarily have a quick way to summarize so it seemed like it would be useful - in fact there’s another person who I guess innocently posted a similar summary..). I also agree it would be useful for this to be an explicit policy. Anyway, now I know…

semiquaver 2y ago

FWIW, I (a human) read the order and this is a pretty accurate summary.

lolinder 2y ago
I did as well and yes, it's fine. This is just a meta comment about what we're accidentally training people to do, not a critique of OP.
PKop 2y ago
Why is this relevant? Who want's "summaries" in the comments? We can all copy and paste ourselves, so spamming this nonsense is useless.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jcranmer 2y ago

Even without the attribution, it was still pretty clear to me that it was a chatbot-generated summary. No human who understands how the legal procedure works would introduce the summary in that way, as the court order is the preliminary injunction.

aspenmayer 2y ago
Even without the attribution, generated comments are against HN guidelines.

aspenmayer 2y ago

I’ve begged dang to specifically say that generated comments are against HN guidelines in the guidelines themselves, but as it stands, it’s still against guidelines, but only communicated in comments. I warned about the perverse incentives as well. It’s a pretty subpar status quo. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42224783 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42224783 https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=human%20generated%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

artistic_regard 2y ago
[dead]

M2Ys4U 2y ago

It still surprises me that people can't immediately spot that comments like that are slop. I don't know why it still surprises me, given the frequency at which it happens, but still.

tmsh 2y ago

I was not aware of the policy. My intent was to save people having to read the many pages when they just want a summary of the facts (and I don’t think most people necessarily have a quick way to summarize so it seemed like it would be useful - in fact there’s another person who I guess innocently posted a similar summary..). I also agree it would be useful for this to be an explicit policy. Anyway, now I know…