4 ms·

There have been numerous stories on HN where someone directly involved with the story has created an account specifically to engage in discussion about whatever

by Lerc 8mo ago

There have been numerous stories on HN where someone directly involved with the story has created an account specifically to engage in discussion about whatever the story was about. Losing that seems too high of a price to pay. Yes there are AI generated comments, in the past there has been script generated comments. You can report, downvote, or just ignore and move on. I am aware of posts like this existing, but I feel they are being effectively managed. Try not to be too offended about the notion of these posts existing. Many of them are not malicious, they just caused by users stepping outside what is considered appropriate, but in a landscape where the footing is quite dynamic, everyone is making their own judgement calls in a field where the consensus is not clear, guidance seems more appropriate than punishment here.

krapp 8mo ago
>Losing that seems too high of a price to pay. Assuming the mods just auto-ban new accounts and require them to be vouched and to earn minimum karma before being visible, those comments can be vouched up or approved by the moderators. The poster won't know that they've been banned, of course, because that's how shadowbanning works, so the approval process should be seamless for them. But how often does that happen versus the AI comments and alt account trolling? >but in a landscape where the footing is quite dynamic, everyone is making their own judgement calls in a field where the consensus is not clear, guidance seems more appropriate than punishment here. The consensus is and has always been clear. Generated comments of any kind have never been allowed. People just don't care, and that's a problem. And those comments are malicious in effect if not intent. We're here to have conversations with human beings, the intellectual and emotional connection is important. What is the point of having conversations with a machine, much less not knowing one is having a conversation with a machine? If nothing else, it's dehumanizing and a waste of time.
- Lerc 8mo ago
  >those comments are malicious in effect if not intent. I don't believe that is possible. I think malice requires intent.
  - macintux 8mo ago
    Sufficiently advanced destructiveness is indistinguishable from malice.
    - Lerc 8mo ago
      If that were not the case there would be no need for Hanlon's razor. The fact that Hanlon's razor needs to be said at all is to warn people about attributing malice to instances where none exist. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." It's not saying that instances that actions attributable to malice do not appear. It's saying it usually isn't malice.
gus_massa 8mo ago
> There have been numerous stories on HN where someone directly involved with the story has created an account specifically to engage in discussion about whatever the story was about. Yes, and sometimes some of the HN automatic filters kills the comments. Remember to "vouch" the comments if they are interesting/relevant, a few "vouches" unkill the comments. And in extreme cases, send an email to hn@ycombinator.com so dang/tomhow can take a look and use some magic to fix the problem.

by Lerc 8mo ago

krapp 8mo ago

>Losing that seems too high of a price to pay. Assuming the mods just auto-ban new accounts and require them to be vouched and to earn minimum karma before being visible, those comments can be vouched up or approved by the moderators. The poster won't know that they've been banned, of course, because that's how shadowbanning works, so the approval process should be seamless for them. But how often does that happen versus the AI comments and alt account trolling? >but in a landscape where the footing is quite dynamic, everyone is making their own judgement calls in a field where the consensus is not clear, guidance seems more appropriate than punishment here. The consensus is and has always been clear. Generated comments of any kind have never been allowed. People just don't care, and that's a problem. And those comments are malicious in effect if not intent. We're here to have conversations with human beings, the intellectual and emotional connection is important. What is the point of having conversations with a machine, much less not knowing one is having a conversation with a machine? If nothing else, it's dehumanizing and a waste of time.

Lerc 8mo ago
>those comments are malicious in effect if not intent. I don't believe that is possible. I think malice requires intent.
- macintux 8mo ago
  Sufficiently advanced destructiveness is indistinguishable from malice.
  - Lerc 8mo ago
    If that were not the case there would be no need for Hanlon's razor. The fact that Hanlon's razor needs to be said at all is to warn people about attributing malice to instances where none exist. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." It's not saying that instances that actions attributable to malice do not appear. It's saying it usually isn't malice.

gus_massa 8mo ago

> There have been numerous stories on HN where someone directly involved with the story has created an account specifically to engage in discussion about whatever the story was about. Yes, and sometimes some of the HN automatic filters kills the comments. Remember to "vouch" the comments if they are interesting/relevant, a few "vouches" unkill the comments. And in extreme cases, send an email to hn@ycombinator.com so dang/tomhow can take a look and use some magic to fix the problem.