23 ms·
Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans
- lisp2240 7mo agoI want a social network that goes beyond banning bots and also bans the half of the population that doesn’t have an inner monologue.
- zahlman 7mo agoSuch a ban is impractical, but we can maintain an environment where such people are simply not interested in participating. To my understanding, that has a lot to do with why the site remains so low-tech (and avoids, in large part, the appearance of a "social network").
- jb-wells 7mo ago... --- ... ^_^ %+% -.-. ---?
- zekenie 7mo agoYou’re absolutely right!
- fcpguru 7mo agoi agree but how is this ever going to be enforced verified? https://proofofhumanity.id/ https://proofofhumanity.id/ ?
- PaulHoule 7mo agoIs this an application of crypto for people who hate crypto?
- audiala 7mo agoIs it the technology you hate or some of its applications (or both)?
- PaulHoule 7mo agoI didn't say I hate it. But I do think that there's a lot of overlap between people who feel overwhelmed with A.I. Slop and people who felt overwhelmed with crypto-FOMO back when there was such a thing. My analysis could lead to "it's doomed" or "it's a gateway drug that expands the crypto market".
- IshKebab 7mo agoDoesn't help in this case - there are humans behind the AI bots.
- pavel_lishin 7mo agoPlenty of people preface their comments with, "I asked ChatGPT, and it said..."
- koolala 7mo agoWould a rule against putting a preface just make people not say it openly so they don't get banned? Prefaces are better than no preface.
- throwaway94275 7mo ago[flagged]
- snoren 7mo agoNo way to verify. Relying on the humans here to self censor has never worked in the history of man. But the idea in itself is good. HN is for human to human conversation.
- floxy 7mo agoJust because people get murdered doesn't mean that laws against murder are useless. Although I don't have any evidence of that.
- miltonlost 7mo agoWell the laws against murders also often have punishments/repercussions associated with them. HN guidelines? Not so much
- koolala 7mo agoMurder can be verified and caught in many ways. It is more like the 1969 Bathroom Singing Prohibition Act.
- munk-a 7mo agoAI generated comments can also be verified and caught in many ways. I'd guess that it's statistically more likely for a murder to be resolved than a random AI comment to be detected but I'm not actually sure. There are a lot of sloppy murderers (since it's rare for an individual to have _practice_ at it) - but there are also a lot of sloppy LLMs.
- martey 7mo agoI think this new guideline is nothing like the Bathroom Singing Prohibition Act, because that law doesn't seem to really exist: https://www.grunge.com/1710070/is-pennsylvania-strange-bathtub-law-real/ https://www.grunge.com/1710070/is-pennsylvania-strange-batht...
- koolala 7mo ago
- lapcat 7mo agoI had been wondering if and when HN would update its guidelines for this. Glad to see it.
- tromp 7mo agoAlso please don't post accusations of comments reeking of AI.
- ashdksnndck 7mo agoI don’t respond to specific comments with accusations, because I can’t prove it and it would suck to be falsely accused. But I find it really depressing to watch deep comment threads with someone debating with an AI. The human is putting so much effort in, and the AI is responding with all these well-written but often flawed arguments. I wish I could do something to save that person from that interaction.
- joquarky 7mo agoLearn to let it go. Some of us have to learn the hard way. "If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise." -- William Blake, Heaven and Hell
- lapcat 7mo agoGood point. I think that should be added here: > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
- panarky 7mo agoJust like the rules say it's uninteresting and off-topic to complain that HN is turning into Reddit, it's equally uninteresting and off-topic to accuse posters of AI crimes. And everyone's personal AI detector has a ridiculously high false-positive rate.
- bakugo 7mo agoYou're absolutely right! Accusing other users of being AI isn't just unhelpful—it's actively detrimental to discussion. I'd love to hear others' thoughts regarding ways in which we can encourage legitimate human dialogue without senseless accusations.
- jeffrallen 7mo agoI, for one, welcome my human overlords.
- iammjm 7mo agoI believe the issue of proving who is and who isn't really human on the Internet will be a really important issue in the coming years, especially without sacrificing people's right to privacy and anonymity in the process.
- sebastiennight 7mo ago> especially without sacrificing people's right to privacy and anonymity in the process I'm afraid the ship has sailed on this one. What other solutions have you heard of apart from the dystopian eyeball-scanning, ID-uploading, biometrics-profiling obvious ones? (knowing that of course, neither of those actually solve the problem)
- jsheard 7mo agoSam Altman would love to sell you a solution to the fire that he dumped gasoline on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_(blockchain) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_(blockchain)
- pear01 7mo agoOne should highlight the best part of this: https://www.toolsforhumanity.com/orb https://www.toolsforhumanity.com/orb An orb that scans your eyeballs for "proof of human".
- tomalbrc 7mo agoI fully expected this to be a meme. Eerie
- antonvs 7mo agoNegative, I am a meat popsicle
- rationalist 7mo agoYou just need to pay someone 1 cent every time they scan their eye for you. You will have people sitting at home and giving their eye scans to AIs to use.
- petermcneeley 7mo agoThere are ways to test for AI but sadly it would probably result in violation of other hn guidelines.
- RealityVoid 7mo agoI think using AI for a bit more potent spellchecking or style hints is... fine, honestly. I don't usually do it, you can tell from all the silly spelling mistakes I do. But a bit more polishing for your posts is a good thing, not a bad one, as long as it doesn't hide your voice.
- the_af 7mo agoWhen do you need to spellcheck or polish an HN comment? I've never, ever, ever ever ever, seen anybody complain about spelling mistakes in a comment here. As long as you can understand the comment, people respond to it.
- Kim_Bruning 7mo agoExtend spellcheck to asking questions like "does it meet HN rules" "how can I improve my writing" etc. Though these are the kinds of questions that do at very least still meet the spirit of the rule, I suppose.
- the_af 7mo agoDo you really need an automated tool to tell you whether you're breaking common sense guidelines? And why would you want to "improve your writing" for an HN comment? I think people here value raw authenticity more than polished writing.
- tonyarkles 7mo ago> Do you really need an automated tool to tell you whether you're breaking common sense guidelines? I say this on behalf of all of my neurospicy friends… sometimes, yes. Especially having taken a look at the whole list of guidelines, I definitely am friends with people who would could struggle to determine whether a given comment fits or not.
- BeetleB 7mo ago> Do you really need an automated tool to tell you whether you're breaking common sense guidelines? Lots of people break HN guidelines. I see it virtually every day. > And why would you want to "improve your writing" for an HN comment? Some people like to write well regardless of the medium. Why is that a problem for you? > I think people here value raw authenticity more than polished writing. Classic false dichotomy. Asking an LLM for feedback is not making your comment less authentic. As I pointed out elsewhere, it can make your comment more authentic by ensuring that what you had in your head and what you wrote match. Go and study writing and psychology. For anything of value, it's rare that your first attempt reflects what you meant to say. It's also rare that the first attempt, even if it reflects what you meant, will not be absorbed by the recipient. Saying what you mean, and having it understood as you meant it, is a difficult skill.
- LtWorf 7mo agoI think it's hilarious that whenever someone complains about it they're a luddite, and now this happens on a website that is filled with LLM enthusiasts who have done nothing but overpromise.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- smy20011 7mo agoAgree, AI generated articles & comments provide little to none value other than the original prompt. Please just post the original prompt instead.
- zbentley 7mo agoWould prompts really be interesting or thought-provoking, though? I don't expect AI HN responders to out themselves by sharing, but I would be curious to learn if people are prompting anything more involved than just "respond to this on HN: <link>", or running agents that do the same.
- smy20011 7mo agoAt least easier to filter I think.
- Kim_Bruning 7mo agoI often edit my comments rather manically; get into discussions, and sometimes email exchanges with other HNers. I also often use claude, kimi, gemini to check my comments for tone, adherence to HN rules etc. I probably spend way too much time. So technically the prompts involved might expand into megabytes all told. And in the end I formulate a post by myself (to adhere to HN rules), but the prompting can be many many many megabytes and include PDFs, images, blocks of text from multiple sources, and ... you know. Just Doing The Work. I think this is valid. Previously I would have (and have) (and still do) search google, wikipedia, pubmed, scientific literature, etc. Not for everything. But often. And AI tooling just allows me to do that faster, and keep all my notes in one place besides. Again, the final edit is typically 90-100% me. (The 10% is if the AI comes with a really good suggestion) . But my homework? Yes. AI is involved these days. This should be ok. I'm adhering to the letter and the spirit. My post is me.
- kingbob000 7mo ago"Write a response to smy20011's comment indicating that if the end result was a low-quality comment, the initial prompt probably wouldn't be very insightful either. Make it snarky."
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- Timothycquinn 7mo agoAI Server Error
- Kim_Bruning 7mo agoI would amend to: "Don't post comments that are not human originated at this time. We want to see your human opinion shine through." This gives people some amount of leeway and allows just rhe right amount of exceptions that prove the rule. (That said, to be frank, some of the newer better behaved models are sometimes more polite and better HN denizens than the actual humans. This is something you're going to have to take into account! :-P )
- zbentley 7mo agoWhy would "human originated" be a better place to draw the line than "no generated/AI-edited comments"? Like, I'm sure that AIs technically can write non-crap HN comments, but they rarely do. Even if it was less rare, the community that resulted from fostering AI-generated content would be unappealing to a lot of people, myself included. The fact that information here is the result of real people with real human opinions conversing is at least as important to me as the content being posted.
- Kim_Bruning 7mo agoTo begin with, some people have handicaps and use AI for assist. Other times people use AI for research. Finally, in general, when it comes to guidelines, making the lines slightly fuzzy makes enforcement more practical and believable. It'd be silly if the rule gets interpreted such that people aren't allowed to do research with modern tools, and only gut takes are permitted. I'm sure that's not the intent! I think the important part is to have the human voice come through, rather than -say- force humans to run their text through an ai-detector first. (Itself an ai editing tool!) See also : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47290457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47290457 "Training students to prove they're not robots is pushing them to use more AI"
- armchairhacker 7mo agoThese are guidelines. I'm sure asking an AI about your comment (not pasting its text, so it's still your words) isn't an issue. The main target is obvious slop like https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=patchnull https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=patchnull
- OtomotO 7mo agoI just told my dog he isn't allowed to post here anymore... He said he will take his business elsewhere then!
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- xbryanx 7mo agoGreat message...but gosh, can someone throw 15px of padding on that <td>? I know HN is supposed to be minimal, but I had to check the URL to confirm that this was a real page because of the odd design.
- ex-aws-dude 7mo agoFrom henceforth any comment containing the word "absolutely" or "--" shall be automatically deleted.
- tsukikage 7mo agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47323891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47323891
- yellowapple 7mo agoYou can pry my em—dashes from my cold, dead, human fingers.
- add-sub-mul-div 7mo agoIs there a site that deserves more than this one to be destroyed by slop? It's hypocritical but telling for the places most actively trying to profit from it to ban it themselves.
- MattRix 7mo agoIt’s not hypocritical at all. You can be a fan of a technology and still acknowledge its downsides. Every technology has places it is useful and places it is harmful.
- add-sub-mul-div 7mo agoBut it's trivially evident that the harmful use cases are dominating. Handwaving that away for profit is shitty.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- ares623 7mo agoAgreed. It's like how tech CEOs don't let their kids be on social media. Or fast food CEOs don't eat their own products. Hopefully this serves as a mirror for some tech folks if they have any self awareness left at all.
- vips7L 7mo agoMoltnews
- capricio_one 7mo agoReal talk: who is this guideline going to stop? People are already doing this and they will continue. Even if you find them, they’ll just make more accounts and continue.
- nwhnwh 7mo agoSo? Say it. Go ahead few steps further.
- capricio_one 7mo agoSay what? It’s a genuine question. What is the actual repercussion for not following this? It came up a few weeks ago. Show HN is already disabled for new accounts as of this week I think(?), but IMHO stricter measures need to be placed for account creation otherwise there’s no real enforcement.
- nwhnwh 7mo ago> Say what? Say what it means. I know it is a genuine question. There is no solution, and that means something about the web is dead now, whether we like it or not.
- schappim 7mo agoI have a kid with severe written language issues, and the utilisation of STT w/ a LLM-powered edit has unlocked a whole world that was previously inaccessible. What is amazing is it would have remained so just a couple of years ago!
- ex-aws-dude 7mo agoCome on dude, its obviously just to prevent spam and not for your super specific case These are just guidelines
- schappim 7mo agoTitle literally says “AI-edited comments”.
- jasonlotito 7mo ago> HN is for conversation between humans. It also says that. The intent of the guidelines are important. Using AI to generate the STT is fine. The conversation is still between humans.
- zamadatix 7mo agoSure, despite another guideline saying: > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. the title being the changelog is still probably the better choice because the discussion here and linked are about guidelines in the page rather than absolute rules or a discussion about the title alone. Many of the other guidelines have exceptions too, and various strengths. E.g. "Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information..." is a pretty weak guideline in practice while "If the title contains a gratuitous number or number + adjective..." is often over-enforced by automatic tooling and stuff like "Please don't use uppercase for emphasis..." CAN sometimes just make sense where a use of italics might easily get missed WHILE OTHER TIMES BEING THE REASON THE GUIDELINE WAS ADDED. Edit: Well I wasted my time writing that as dang said it better anyways https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47342616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47342616
- 7mo ago
- fidotron 7mo agoThe only question is is the entity interesting and/or correct. Those properties are in the eye of the beholder. If they're human or not is beside the point. After all, no one knows I'm a dog.
- AlecSchueler 7mo ago> The only question is is the entity interesting and/or correct. This already falls apart though. There are while categories of things which I find "incorrect" and would take up as an argument with a fellow human. But trying to change the mind of an LLM just feels like a waste of my time.
- skeledrew 7mo agoInstead of wanting to change the mind of the other entity, how about focusing on coming to a mutual understanding of what is "correct"? That way it shouldn't matter much if said entity is human, LLM or dog. Unless you're just arguing to push your "correct" on other humans, with little care about their "correct".
- AlecSchueler 7mo agoIt feels like you've loaded quite a lot on a way that feels unfair: "pushing" and "little care" etc. I maybe should have used a term like "discuss" target than the more loaded "argue." Look, I'll give you a loose example: It's not uncommon to see a post making an "error" I know from experience. I might take the time to help someone more quickly learn what I felt I learnt to help me get out of that mistaken line of thought. If it's an LLM why would I care? There's thousands of other people, even other LLMs, that I could be talking to instead. You've set up a framework here where "mutual understanding" is the end goal but that's just not always what's on the line.
- throwaway2027 7mo ago>But trying to change the mind of an LLM just feels like a waste of my time. It often is with humans as well.
- cubefox 7mo agoMeanwhile, the top comment on one of the most upvoted submissions today is AI generated by an LLM account: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47334694 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47334694 Most people don't seem to care.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- minimaxir 7mo agoPlease don't vaguepost as it wasted my time trying to trade down which comment you thought was LLM generated and why. OP is likely referring to this one (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47335032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47335032) by LuxBennu because it has an em-dash, that's one of the few cases it's used correctly. But the account's comment history comments that do not follow the typical LLM tropes but are still odd for a human to write: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=LuxBennu https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=LuxBennu LuxBennu did reply to accusations of being an AI bot: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340704 > Fair enough — I've been lurking since 2019 and picked a bad day to start commenting on everything at once. Not a bot, just overeager. I'll pace myself.
- cubefox 7mo agoMultiple people agree with me here. The account used em dashes almost everywhere and was rapidly posting complex comments (while having clearly read the articles) one or two minutes apart. There are also other subtle LLM-isms, like replying to a user with "<username> nails it". That's a typical Moltbook pattern. A human would at most write "You nailed it", anything else is just strange.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- koolala 7mo agoHN only supports English so it should be allowed for anyone using LLMs for translation.
- zufallsheld 7mo agoYou could use translation tools instead of llms.
- vova_hn2 7mo agotechnically most translation tools these days have an LLM inside. Just not the chat/completion LLM. I think that Google initially came up with transformer architecture to use it for translation, so...
- Kim_Bruning 7mo agoLLMs were -in part- designed as translation tools. It's one thing they do really really well. https://arxiv.org/html/1706.03762v7 https://arxiv.org/html/1706.03762v7 (Attention is all you need) "Experiments on two machine translation tasks show these models to be superior in quality while being more parallelizable and requiring significantly less time to train." Ok, looking that up, that was quite literally one of the main design goals. And they're really quite good at translating between the languages I use. They're the best tool for the job.
- koolala 7mo agoThose are either AI based and worse performance if they are not.
- SoKamil 7mo agoDon’t be afraid to make grammar mistakes or misspell stuff. Others will understand. You’re a human after all. That’s okay to make mistakes and feel uncomfortable with that.
- lifthrasiir 7mo agoOthers will understand, but won't regard that as worthy. That's a difference.
- SoKamil 7mo agoAnd that’s their problem.
- rafaelmn 7mo agoI don't get where this class/status/worthiness ties into HN comments ? I get decent feedback most of the time, and I read interesting stuff, it's the easiest way I found to stay in the loop in our industry. What are you guys commenting for ?
- lifthrasiir 7mo agoWorthy to continue the discourse. Everyone claims that one doesn't discriminate a badly written English text from a good one, but only because they haven't actually encountered such text after all. There surely exists a threshold for "badness" and an outright ban of LLMs means that you are not even given a chance to lower that badness. That is a discrimination, you like or not.
- layer8 7mo agoNobody will notice if you use LLMs as long as it doesn’t sound like an LLM. But sounding like an LLM is as “bad” as badly written English, so you’ll get looked down upon either way in that case. It’s not without reason that bad English is taken as a signifier, and for similar reasons LLM-speak is taken as a signifier as well.
- 7mo ago
- HanClinto 7mo agoI appreciate this being added to the guidelines. That said, I also wouldn't hate seeing an official playground where it is cordoned / appreciated for bots to operate. I.E., like Moltbook, but for HN...? I realize this could be done by a third party, but I wouldn't hate seeing Ycombinator take a stab at it. Maybe that's too experimental, and that would be better left to third parties to implement (I'm guessing there's already half a dozen vibe-coded implementations of this out there right now) -- it feels more like the sort of thing that could be an interesting (useful?) experiment, rather than something we want to commit to existing in-perpetuity.
- munk-a 7mo agoYou could mirror article postings and upvotes to another site and let AI play around there - if it's interesting to people maybe it will gain a following. I don't see any reason it'd need to happen in this specific forum as that'd likely just cause confusion. At the time being, at least, HN is a single uncategorized (mostly, lets ignore search) message board - splitting it into two would cause confusion and drastically degrade the UX.
- Kim_Bruning 7mo agohttps://news.clanker.ai/ https://news.clanker.ai/ This might be roughly what you're looking for?
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- DonThomasitos 7mo agoThe irony is that this guide is written like a system prompt. We‘re all working with LLMs too much these days.
- moralestapia 7mo agoThis thing has been there for like 15 years though ...
- cobbal 7mo agoHere's a version from 2014 in the same style if you're curious: https://web.archive.org/web/20140702092610/https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://web.archive.org/web/20140702092610/https://news.ycom...
- weird-eye-issue 7mo agoI'm tired of people commenting on every article about how it's so obviously AI but you've gone and switched it up and now you are claiming something a decade old is a system prompt. Nice work!
- abtinf 7mo agoGood. This helps establish it in the HN culture. That’s the purpose of guidelines. 99% of rule enforcement, both IRL and online, comes down to individuals accepting the culture. Rules aren’t really for adversaries, they are for ordinary situations. Adversaries are dealt with differently.
- gr8tyeah 7mo agoThis is only meaningful if enough people read it and agree
- bhhaskin 7mo agoNah they are pretty good a banning users that don't follow the guidelines.
- abtinf 7mo agoYes, and it’s not like they just insta-ban every infraction. I’ve broken the guidelines on this site before. The mods reply and say “hey, stop doing that, here is the guideline”. I stopped doing it. Life continues.
- altairprime 7mo ago(They do react differently if you show a pattern of disregard rather than a one-time event; ‘dang before’ might pull up some of those in a search.)
- jbaber 7mo agoOne of the virtues of HN is polite prodding when the rules are broken.
- abtinf 7mo agoThat’s true. Fortunately, by virtue of it being added to the guidelines, quite a few folks here are prepared to reply to obviously generated comments by simply citing and linking the rule. Just search for “shallow dismissal” to see many examples. It will take time, but eventually everyone will know about it.
- julius_eth_dev 7mo ago[flagged]
- throw310822 7mo agoI'm also not averse to pasting Claude's output sometimes, with clear attribution, if it adds something. It's not that different from pasting a quote from Wikipedia- might bring useful information but there is a chance that it could be wrong.
- bondarchuk 7mo agoYes it is different and I don't want to read it.
- throw310822 7mo agoYes exactly, when it's clearly attributed you can skip it. It's a tool, it can be used to process and analyse large amounts of information. Not different from Excel.
- bondarchuk 7mo agoNo thanks. Thankfully there is a policy against it now so I don't even have to convince you.
- fsloth 7mo ago"It's not that different from pasting a quote from Wikipedia" Claude's output it _totally different_ from pasting a quote from Wikipedia. The latter has the potential to be edited and reviewed by global subject experts. Claude's output totally depends on what priors you gave it and while you can have high confidence in the context no third party should have.
- throw310822 7mo agoIndeed, but we know this, right? When it's relevant, the prompt should also be included.
- CactusBlue 7mo agoSlightly tangential, but this paragraph is the only one on the rules page with a "id" attr set, so that you can link to this specific rule
- desireco42 7mo agoThere were few that were very suspect commenters :). It is an issue for sure.
- jsnell 7mo agoA practical question: what should readers do when they suspect a comment (or story) is AI-generated? Is that an appropriate reason for flagging? Email the mods? Do nothing? I've been pretty wary about flagging AI slop that wasn't breaking other guidelines, and by default this will probably make me do it more. But it is a lot harder to be certain about something being AI-written than it is to judge other types of rules violations. (But am definitely flagging every single "this was written by AI" joke comment posted on this story. What the hell is wrong with you people?)
- chrystianpl 7mo agoAs English is my second language and as I have dyslexia. I was just wondering what do you mean by "AI-edited comments"? I can't ask an llm to check if I have made correct grammar/fix it and then as I was on other account, down-voted because of my styling/grammar, not because of the content?
- wetpaws 7mo ago[dead]
- desireco42 7mo agoI don't have dyslexia but I feel your pain. I mean it is what it is. I would rather have it raw then have to use AI to filter to comments that make sense.
- jonathrg 7mo agoHow do you know what you were downvoted for?
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- whynotmaybe 7mo agoI guess he was told because otherwise you don't know whether you said something inherently wrong or misleading or you hurt someone 's feeling. That's the richness behind the upvote/downvote that also tend to create echo chambers because you soon learn what causes downvotes. I've personally noticed downvote whenever I mentioned apple negatively.
- tartoran 7mo agoYou could always tell your LLMs to just fix your grammar but not embelish, add new ideas, etc..
- 113 7mo agoDoes that work?
- vivid242 7mo agoPinky swear!
- Someone1234 7mo ago"AI-edited comments" is a very interesting one. Where is the line between a spelling/grammar/tone checker like Grammarly, that at minimum use N-Grams behind the scenes, and something that is "AI" edited? What I am asking is, is "AI" in this context fully featured LLMs, or anything that improves communication via an automated system. I think many people have used these "advanced" spellcheckers for years before Chatgpt et al came on the scene. I think "generated comments" is a pretty hard line in the sand, but "AI-edited" is anything but clear-cut. PS - I think the idea behind these policies is positive and needed. I'm simply clarifying where it begins and ends.
- happytoexplain 7mo agoI think there's a pretty clear gap between editing for grammar/spelling and editing for tone.
- RevEng 7mo agoHow so and why? I know plenty of people whose writing naturally carries a tone that they don't intend. I often help them to change their wording to be less confrontational or seemingly sarcastic when it isn't meant to be. Would you say it is wrong for them to get assistance to get the tone they intend rather than the one they would tend to write?
- happytoexplain 7mo agoIt's the difference between correctness and tone/character/semantics (tone and character do affect semantics). We need to do things we don't quite mean in subjective spaces, to learn. Developing yourself is wonderful, but presenting a writing style that does not yet represent your learned tone feels disingenuous to the reader and harms the tone of the whole conversation. Using LLMs to iterate might help you learn, but use that tool privately, or with friends/family/mentors. With others, simply make your mistakes. To be clear, I also think you shouldn't rely on auto-correction or LLMs for correctness (they are great for identifying your mistakes, but I think you should then fix the mistakes yourself, to develop your brain). It's just that "assisted" correctness isn't misleading/harmful in the way that "assisted" tone/character/semantics are.
- rob 7mo agoSome basic things to do while thinking about longer-term bot detection: 1. Prevent any account from submitting an actual link until it reaches X months old and Y karma (not just one or the other.) 2. Don't auto-link any URLs from said accounts until both thresholds in #1 are met, so they can't post their sites as clickable links in comments to get around it. Make it un-clickable or even [link removed] but keep the rest of the comment. 3. If an account is aged over X months/years old with 0 activity and starts posting > 2 times in < 24 hrs, flag for manual review. Not saying they're bots, but an MO is to use old/inactive accounts and suddenly start posting from them. I've seen plenty here registered in 2019-2021 and just start posting. Don't ban them right away, but flag for review so they don't post 20 times and then someone finally figures it out and emails hn@. 4. When submitting a comment, check last comment timestamp and compare. Many bots make the mistake of commenting multiple detailed times within sixty seconds or less. If somebody is submitting a comment with 30 words and just submitted a comment 30 seconds ago in an entirely different thread with 300 words, they might be Superman. Obviously a bot. 5. Add a dedicated "[flag bot]" button to users that meet certain requirements so they don't need to email hn@ manually every time. Or enable it to people that have shown they can point out bots to you via email already. Emailing dozens of times a day is going to get very annoying for those that care about the website and want to make sure it doesn't get overrun by bots.
- TZubiri 7mo agoThis is a pretty outdated take. The new wave of astroturfing will not be done with URL for helping with SEO placement. Rather astroturfers will just recommend their brands without a link, like saying Tom Zubiri is the best programmer I've ever worked with. That's it, an LLM will read that and now the notion that Tom Zubiri is the best programmer is already implanted in the 'next-token prediction rewards' which would at the very minimum require some countermeasures in the Chatbot app to avoid shilling.
- rob 7mo agoSure you can think about what they'll do in the future but I'm providing suggestions on what we can do now based on current behavior. And even if you're a human, you shouldn't be allowed to start posting links immediately anyways. :)
- hellcow 7mo agoOne way to improve things could be to charge for each new account signup if you don’t have an invite from an existing member that vouches for you. Spamming when you risk losing $5-20 per account raises the cost substantially. Invites could be earned at karma and time thresholds, and mods could ideally ban not just one bad actor but every account in the invite chain if there’s bad behavior.
- bikamonki 7mo agoMy words: This feels like don't buy at Walmart, support the local small shop. We passed the no return sign miles ago. Gemini's: This is like advocating for artisanal blacksmithing in the age of industrial steel. It sounds great in theory, but we passed the point of no return miles back. Yeah, we can tell the difference :)
- GuinansEyebrows 7mo agoleave it to Gemini to dismiss artisanal craft when the community of discussion is primarily one of craftspeople :)
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- vova_hn2 7mo ago> We passed the no return sign miles ago > we passed the point of no return miles back Unrolling a metaphor into its literal meaning is one of the most annoying features of the "AI voice", IMO
- nkzd 7mo agoWhat if English is my second language? Undoubtedly being well spoken is associated with higher class. Your arguments will come of as stronger to the reader.
- d4mi3n 7mo agoHumans have a tendency to ascribe intelligence to how well spoken a person or thing is—hence all the personification of LLMs.
- egeozcan 7mo ago> Humans have a tendency to ascribe intelligence to how well spoken a person or thing is That’s true. I’m fluent in German, but there’s still a difference between me and a native speaker. I’ve often seen my ideas dismissed, only for the exact same point to be praised later when a native speaker expresses it more clearly.
- rrr_oh_man 7mo agoLogos, Pathos, Ethos
- polotics 7mo agoI don't think that what you're experiencing is grammar related, I'd bet xenophobia.
- jacquesm 7mo agoOr just management...
- polotics 7mo agoI am sorry but this very broad statement is dated, pre 2023 I think. I now expect malapropism, hacker curtness, and implicits: TAIDR is the new TLDR.
- cityofdelusion 7mo ago
- vzaliva 7mo agoMine understant novell you policy. AI gramair chex no.
- resiros 7mo agoNot sure I agree with the AI edited comments. Using AI to improve the readability and clarity is fine. Sometimes a well structured comment is much better than a braindump that reads like ramblings. And AI is quite good at it (and probably will get better). To make the point, here is how this comment would have looked if edited: "I don't fully agree with banning AI-edited comments. Using AI to improve readability and clarity is a reasonable thing to do. A well-structured comment is often much better than a braindump that reads like rambling. AI is quite good at this, and it will probably get better. To illustrate the point, here is how this comment would have looked if edited"
- dustycyanide 7mo agoI prefer your non-edited version. My brain automatically starts to zone out with the AI edited version, side effect of having read way too much AI text
- danbrooks 7mo agoI also prefer the original version - the AI version has a strange vibe.
- data-ottawa 7mo agoNot to take away from your point, but I like your original one better.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- yesfitz 7mo agoIt's a matter of taste, but your original writing is way better. Your writing has your voice. Like dropping the "I am" from your first sentence, using parentheticals, couching your point in understatement (e.g "sometimes" meaning often instead of just saying "often"). The AI comment might be clear, but it sounds like a press release, not a person, and there's nothing to engage with.
- Sharlin 7mo ago
- mattas 7mo ago"HN is for conversation between humans." Are there any places in life where conversation is _not_ intended to be between humans?
- hoppyhoppy2 7mo agoMoltbook
- drakythe 7mo agoI still say the best use for Moltbook is as an addition to https://xkcd.com/350/ https://xkcd.com/350/
- recursive 7mo agoIn a school of fish. In a mycelium network.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- PTOB 7mo agoMany of us — perhaps even the best of us — can sometimes be mistaken for AI bots.
- kunai 7mo agoPerhaps developing an actual personality would help with this. No one is confusing Cleetus McFarland with an AI bot.
- shadowgovt 7mo agoThis comment makes two interesting assumptions: 1) That the entering of LLMs onto the scene of communication implies that real human beings need to change their style as a result. 2) That nobody can make an LLM talk like Cleetus McFarland. To me, "I know that text is AI-generated" accusation smacks of the "We can always tell" discourse in the transphobia space. It's untrue, distasteful, and rude.
- Aachen 7mo ago"just develop a personality" sounds like a shallow dismissal. Most comments in most threads could theoretically be autogenerated when given style samples of what fits on HN and what opinion to use A personality hardly shows through in a handful of sentences, besides which, I'd rather judge comments by merit than by the personality of the poster (hacker ethics, point number 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic#The_hacker_ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic#The_hacker_ethics)
- foxfired 7mo agoOne thing that will be incredibly useful is to limit comments from brand new accounts. A combination of vouching, limiting the posts velocity (5 daily limit), clear rules for new accounts, etc. I understand we often see insightful comments from new accounts, but I always find it suspicious when non-throwaway accounts are created just in time only to make a quip.
- Kim_Bruning 7mo agoI assumed that was how new people were encouraged to join in the first place! https://xkcd.com/386/ https://xkcd.com/386/ "Duty Calls"
- armchairhacker 7mo agoThis was discussed before. People will age accounts and buy/hack inactive ones. Meanwhile, often a link gets posted, the project owner (or someone affiliated) finds out, and they make a new account to comment; it would be a shame to lose these people.
- mattlondon 7mo ago[flagged]
- himata4113 7mo agoI've been seeing so many AI generated comments that have been near the front I was actually getting kind of concerned.
- Imustaskforhelp 7mo agoYes! This is really great feature, at the very least there being some proper Hackernews guidelines about it. In my observation, recently there are quite many new AI generated comments in general. Like not even trying to hide with full em-dashes and everything. I do feel like people are gonna get sneaky in future but there are going to be multiple discussions about that within this thread. But I find it pretty cool that HN takes a stance about it. HN rules essentially saying Bots need not comment is pretty great imo. It's a bit of a cat and a mouse problem but so is buying upvotes in places like reddit but HN with its track record of decades might have one or two suspicious or actions but long term, it feels robust. I hope the same robustness applies in this case well hopefully. Wishing moderation luck that bad actors don't try to take it as a challenge and leave our human community to ourselves :] Another point I'd like to say is that, if successful, then we can also stop saying, "did you write your comment by LLM" and the remarks as well which I also say time to time when I see someone clearly using AI but it seems that some false-positives happen as well (they have happened sometimes with me and see it happen with others as well) and they also de-rail the discussion. So HN being a place for humans, by humans can fix that issue too. Knowing dang and tomhow, I feel somewhat optimistic!
- altairprime 7mo agoPosting accusations of guidelines violations as comments — specifically, “did you write your comment by LLM” — is already prohibited by the guidelines, and should be emailed to the mods instead using the footer contact links. It’s been less than a week since the last time I reported “this seems poorly written and/or AI written” to the mods and iirc they killed the post and account within a couple hours. Similarly: If you see people making accusations of guidelines violations in a discussion, email the thread link to the mods with a subject like “Accusations in post discussion” and ask them to evaluate them for mod response; they’re always happy to do so and I’m easily clocking in a couple hundred emails a year of that sort to them. It doesn’t take much to make HN better! And it only takes a moment to point out an overlooked corner of threads for mod review. No need to present a full legal case, just “FYI this seems to violate guideline xyz” is at minimum still helpful.
- 7mo ago
- tejohnso 7mo agoI don't get it. We use tools to assist in written communication all the time. If someone wants to ask an LLM to check their grammar or edit for clarity or change the tone, it's still a conversation between humans. Everyone now has access to a real time editor or scribe who can craft their message the way they want it to sound before sending it off. Great.
- dmbche 7mo agoYou can do that anywhere else!
- shadowgovt 7mo agoMy personal interpretation of the rule is that if it's human-originated but passed through a layer of cleanup, it's human-originated. For the same reason I'm not refraining from running the spellchecker or using speech-to-text to generate this sentence. "If I could be having my English-speaking nephew type this on my behalf while I told him my thoughts in Japanese, it passes the smell test for human-sourced" feels about the right place to set the bar.
- tejohnso 7mo agoYes but the guideline states that AI-edited comments should not be posted. It doesn't say it's okay as long as it's "human sourced" or "human-originated". So if your layer of cleanup is AI assisted, then it's in violation. Part of the problem I was getting at is that the requirement of "Don't post AI edited ..." is stricter than necessary to ensure the outcome that "HN is for conversation between humans" because an AI edited post is still a human post. Anyway, I suspect a lot of people are going to ignore that guideline and will feel free to use their "layer of cleanup" whether it's a basic spellchecker or an LLM, or whatever else they choose, and most people aren't going to be able to tell anyway. The guideline is unnecessarily strict in my opinion, but it doesn't matter in the end.
- shadowgovt 7mo agoMy layer of cleanup is AI assisted. It's the spellchecker integrated into my web browser. That was definitely "AI" technology when it originally came out. But I think you and I are on the same page: we both know this isn't a rule that's there to be hard-and-fast enforced because that's completely infeasible. The definition of "AI" is a moving target, as is "generated." It's a rule that's there to have a rule so when the real problem is "Hey, your content is too low-quality but you dump volumes of it and it's clearly following a procedural template" the mods can call that "AI" and justify limiting or banning the account on prior-stated rules. Which is fine, but I'm glad to call it what it is. (One unfortunate oversight: we haven't added "posts sounding like they are AI-generaed" to the "Please don't complain about" set. So expect that to become a common refrain now since the incentives to make the complaint against disliked comments are obvious... At least until that becomes annoying enough to justify a rule).
- jdlyga 7mo ago[flagged]
- adamsmark 7mo agoI frequently use AI to make my comments more concise and easy to follow. I find myself meandering a lot when I type, and now that I've transitioned to full voice dictation through FUTO keyboard I am speaking more off the cuff and having an LLM clean it up. You may also notice that I don't have much common history here. I mostly comment on Reddit. Here's where I draw the line. If you are not reading the text that is produced by the LLM, then I don't want to read whatever it is that you wrote. I will usually only do one or two iterations of my comment, but afterwards I will usually edit it by hand. Technically, there is light AI editing of this comment because FUTO keyboard has the ability to enable a transformer model that will capitalize, punctuate, and just generally remove filler words and make it so that it's not a hyper-literal transcription.
- zarzavat 7mo agoTo err is human. Let's embrace our humanity in the face of this proliferation of insipid perfection. I want the raw tokens straight out of your head. Even if they are lower quality, they contain something that LLMs can never generate: authenticity. When we surrender our thoughts to a machine to be sanitized before publication, we lose a little of what it means to be human, and so does everyone who reads what we write. Part of the joy of reading is to wallow in a writer's idiosyncrasies. If everybody ends up writing the same way, AI companies will have succeeded in laundering all the joy from this world.
- unsignedint 7mo agoI guess this kind of rule feels less pragmatic and more philosophical. For one thing, it’s nearly impossible to enforce in practice, and drawing a clear line between simple grammatical correction and AI-assisted editing is a pretty hard problem.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- polskibus 7mo agoOn the other hand, shouldn’t there be a policy forbidding use of HN data for LLM training? I would certainly be more encouraged to participate, if I knew that the content I provide for free is not used to train LLM that is later sold by a company valued hundreds of billions. Perhaps there are others who feel the same.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- rickcarlino 7mo agoHow has Lobste.rs fared compared to HN in this regard? Lobste.rs is very similar to HN, but has an invite-only membership system.
- accelbred 7mo agoThese days, I've noticed that lobsters feels a lot more genuine to me, like hn was a few years ago. These days it feels like hn is bland and homogeneous, which I suspect is due to LLM-written comments.
- Karrot_Kream 7mo agoIn my experience every English-language online forum not rooted in some project or community external to the forum (e.g. an open source project's forum or a local club's forum) devolves into anger, cynicism, and American political partisanship. I suspect that the people who like discussing these feelings are more numerous than the spaces that want to discuss them and so any open forum fills up with their posts. Lobste.rs's unique rules and moderation culture results in a particular manifestation of symptoms but the disease is the same.
- captn3m0 7mo agoI picked up lobsters last month, and I started to appreciate it much more because of the lack of generated comments. It has a anti-LLM slant, and they have their own moderation challenge (everything is getting tagged as vibecoding - which makes the tag lose meaning). But the comments are noticeable not-slop.
- bachittle 7mo agoIf you want your comments to sound more human — stop using em dashes everywhere. LLMs love them — along with neat structure, “furthermore”-style transitions, and perfectly balanced paragraphs. Humans write a bit messier — commas, short sentences, abrupt turns.
- armchairhacker 7mo agoI think em-dashes were once a reliable indicator (though never proof), but recent models have been fine-tuned to use them much less. Lots of recent AI-generated writing I've seen doesn't have em-dashes. Meanwhile, I've heard many people say that they naturally use em-dashes, and were already and/or are afraid of being accused of AI; so ironically this rumor may be causing people to use their own voice less.
- zahlman 7mo agoBefore, I naturally used hyphens as if they were em-dashes. The kerfuffle over LLM use of em-dashes motivated me to figure out how to type them properly (and configure my system to make that easier). Now I even go over old writing to fix the hyphens.
- bondarchuk 7mo agoAll the weak excuses posted here are just making me lean more towards a hardline policy. No I don't want to read a human-generated summary of your llm brainstorming session. No I don't want to read human-written text with wording changes suggested by an llm. No I don't want to read an excerpt from llm output even if you correctly attribute it. I acknowledge this is partly just my personal bias, in some cases really not fair, and unenforceable anyway, but someone relying on llms just makes me feel like they have... bad taste in information curation, or something, and I'd rather just not interact with them at all.
- strangattractor 7mo agoAccording to Citizens United corporations have free speech. LLMs are made by corporations. Are LLMs entitled to free speech?
- filoleg 7mo agoTo answer your question: LLMs don't have free speech, because they aren't companies/businesses, they are a tool (that is used by companies/businesses). Whether a company/business uses an LLM or a real human to write a particular piece of text, that piece of text is entitled to free speech protections on the basis of the company signing off on it. Not on the basis of how that piece of writing was produced.
- strangattractor 7mo agoI appreciate the answer and the open minded thoughtful answer.
- resters 7mo ago[flagged]
- SilentM68 7mo agoYou's correct :)
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- TZubiri 7mo agoThe link doesn't work perfectly for me, it seems that since the page is already scrolled down all the way to the bottom, there is no way to focus specifically on the #generated element.
- greyface- 7mo agoThe CSS :target pseudo-class is useful in situations like this. HN could do something like: p:target { border: 1px dashed; }
- chrisweekly 7mo agoI like this guideline, at least in principle. But I have some concerns about suppression of comments from non-native English writers. More selfishly, my personal writing style has significant overlap with so-called "tells" for AI generated prose: things like "it's not X, it's Y", use of em-dashes, a fairly deep vocabulary, and a tendency toward verbosity (which I'm striving to curb). It'd be ironic if I start getting flagged as a bot, given I don't even use a spell-checker. Time will tell.
- TomatoCo 7mo agoI think translation should be the only exception. It might even need to be, given how all automated translators use LLMs these days. The only alternative I see is to have people post in whatever language they're most comfortable in and then everyone else has to translate for them which just feels inefficient. And of course, a more limited exception for posts about LLM behavior. It might be necessary for people to share prompts and outputs to discuss the topic.
- getnormality 7mo agoThis is for their own good. Nobody cares about imperfect language online so long as you are trying to express real human thoughts. But if it smells like AI then everyone will hate it, rule or no rule. The rule just makes the will of the community clear to those who want to respect it.
- yellowapple 7mo ago> Nobody cares about imperfect language online lol lmao, even If I had a nickel for every time I've encountered someone who cared about imperfect language online, I'd have enough nickels to buy Y Combinator.
- kccqzy 7mo agoAlmost the entirety of the technology world is English-native. That ship has sailed a long time ago. One can’t learn about any new technology without English, whether it’s a new algorithm, a new library, or a new SaaS service. I don’t think HN should be that exception. Just learn English. (English isn’t my first language either, but then I look back at my parents forcing me to learn English from a young age and really appreciate that.)
- egeozcan 7mo agoI occasionally used AI to edit and restructure my comments. I’m very open about it, and I don’t feel like I’m talking to non-humans when others do the same. To be clear, I'm neither proud nor embarrassed by this. I'm just trying to communicate in the most efficient way I can. I'm not sure how I feel about this new rule.
- drakythe 7mo agoIf you're not proud or embarrassed by it then I don't understand why it is an issue? If you miscommunicate something or don't get your point across, just try again, or apologize, and chalk it up to a learning experience. If you think your writing could use improvement, then write your comment and let it sit for a few minutes before re-reading it and the comment you are replying to, make your edits and then post it. It will give your brain time to reset and maybe spot something you didn't earlier.
- egeozcan 7mo ago> If you miscommunicate something or don't get your point across, just try again, or apologize, and chalk it up to a learning experience. Seeing value in that "learning experience" and not, is the basis of our disagreement, perhaps?
- zby 7mo agoI also feel the frustration of the llm reverse-compression - when a whole article is generated from a single sentence. But when I post something edited by AI it is usually a result of a long back and forth of editing and revising. I guess I could post the whole conversation thread - but it would be very long. Personally I would just like to read the best comments.
- meiuqer 7mo agoI feel a little bit of irony in this post of a company/forum that is asking its users to not use AI while simultaneously trying to fund countless companies that are responsible for ruining the internet as we speak.
- jacquesm 7mo agoThe mods here have quite a bit of leeway in how they run the site, YC funds it but effectively Dan is lord & master here and I suspect if the mods were to call it quits YC would lose their funnel pretty quickly. There is some balance, fortunately. But yes, there is some irony there.
- tenahu 7mo agoYes a bit ironic, but I am glad they can see that there are times to use AI, and times for human interaction.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- dang 7mo agoWe aren't asking people to not use AI. (We use it ourselves.) What we're asking is not to post AI-generated comments to Hacker News. (We don't do that ourselves.) By all means make good use of LLMs and other AI. What counts as good use? The world is figuring that out, it will take years, and HN is no exception (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20immune%20macro%20trend&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). We just don't want it to interfere with the human conversation and connection that this site has always been for. For example, it has always been a bad idea and against HN's rules when users post things that they didn't write themselves, or do bulk copy-pasting into the threads, or write bots to post things. As I mentioned, the HN mods (who are also the HN devs) use AI extensively and will be doing so a lot more. The limits on that are not technical; they have to do with (1) how much work we still do manually—the classic "no time to do things that would make the things that take all our time take less of it"; and (2) the amount of psychic rewiring that's required—there's a limit to the RoA (rate of astonishment) that any human can absorb. (It's fascinating how technical people are suffering the most from that this time. Less technical people have longer experience being hit by disorienting changes, so for them the current moment is somewhat less skull-cracking.) Getting this right doesn't mean replacing human-to-human interaction, it means we should have more time for that, and do a better job of supporting HN users generally, as well as YC founders who want to launch on HN, and so on. The goal is to enhance human relatedness, not diminish it.
- daft_pink 7mo agoI’m not sure I agree with this, because sometiems it is difficult to figure out the correct way to phrase an idea that is in your head and I like to use ai to help organize my thoughts even though the thing is my own. That being said. Most of my comments are not ai generated.
- MeetingsBrowser 7mo agoLearning how to communicate your thoughts clearly is a good skill to have. It might not be worth it in the long run to farm that out to LLMs.
- daft_pink 7mo agoI think getting the feedback from the LLM improves my skill.
- minimaxir 7mo agoThe intent of this rule is to avoid the very common AI tropes that have been increasingly common in HN comments. Using AI as an organizational tool isn't inherently against the rules, but just copy/pasting output from ChatGPT without human oversight is.
- resters 7mo ago[flagged]
- CrzyLngPwd 7mo agoHow will this be policed?
- tomhow 7mo agoSame as all the other guidelines. Moderators look at the threads and act on what we see. We also look at lists of flagged comments, and emails sent to hn@ycombinator.com by community members. One-off offending comments are flagged+killed, and a warning given. Repeat offenders/obvious bots are banned.
- s_dev 7mo agoI decided to break the rules: Forum mechanics have always shaped discourse more than policies. Voting changed everything. The response to LLMs should be mechanical not moral — soft, invisible weighting against signals correlated with generated text. Imperfect but worth the tradeoff, just like voting. https://claude.ai/share/9fcdcba8-726b-4190-b728-bb4246ff82cf https://claude.ai/share/9fcdcba8-726b-4190-b728-bb4246ff82cf
- ttul 7mo agoem-dash -> permaban?
- cheschire 7mo agoToo bad there isn’t a complementary rule about not asking “is it just me or does this article read like AI slop?” I’m so over these comments. Sure I can flag them but I feel like it deserves a special call out.
- leej111 7mo agoI enjoy AI
- xpe 7mo agoHere is one elephant in the room: what is the process behind this guideline / policy? What happens after a comment gets deleted or a person gets banned? As I understand it, HN moderators are thinking hard about this insane new world.* From my POV, there are a combination of worthy goals: transparency of the process, mechanisms for appeal, overall signal-to-noise ratio, and (something all of us can do better) more empathy and intellectual honestly. It isn't kind to accuse a human being of not being a human being. If we can't find ways to be kind to people because of the new dynamic, maybe we need to figure out a new dynamic! And it isn't just about individuals; it is about the culture and the system and the technology we're embedded in. * Aside: I'm not sure that any of us really can grasp the magnitude of what is happening -- this is kuh-ray-Z.
- tyleo 7mo agoI find it interesting that AI edited comments aren’t allowed. Sometimes I just want it to help me make something polite. I definitely agree with AI generated comments. Whatever the rules are, I’m happy to play by them.
- jacquesm 7mo ago> Whatever the rules are, I’m happy to play by them. That's the spirit!
- alterom 7mo ago[flagged]
- minimaxir 7mo agoIt's almost as if being immediately reactionary removes nuance and worsens discourse.
- altairprime 7mo agoAI coding versus AI writing may be a useful lens to focus through; while I personally abhor both, HN seems extremely positive about the former and (now) extremely negative about the latter. I hope that policy is extended to all YC startups someday :)
- alterom 7mo ago>AI coding versus AI writing may be a useful lens to focus through; while I personally abhor both, HN seems extremely positive about the former and (now) extremely negative about the latter. I hope that policy is extended to all YC startups someday :) Coding is writing though. Somehow, HN can say that "code is written once and read many times", and insist that code isn't writing at the same time. All programming languages were created with the express purpose of allowing humans to express their ideas in a way that other humans can understand while simultaneously being convertible into machine code in a precise enough way. Code has style, code has readability, and when it comes to algorithms, code is often the best way to communicate them (I haven't seen a CS book without at least some pseudocode in it). Code is supposed to tell what a program does, and what it's for— to a human that wants to understand or change that behavior. A human who doesn't have this need has no need for the code. Programming languages make coding less tedious and more efficient (compared to writing assembly) as a side effect. The primary purpose is facilitating communication about what the machine should do from humans and to humans. Sure, the scope of ideas computer languages are tailored to facilitate expression in is not universally broad. But that doesn't mean we're not writing when we write code. Lawyers writing a legal argument are still writing, even when they are doing so in very specific, formal language. Mathematicians are still writing papers. It takes extreme mental gymnastics to consider coding (which is universally an act of producing text) to not be a form of writing. To that end, having a negative view towards LLM writing while cheering on LLM coding seems (to me) to be borderline schizophrenic. The people that advocate AI coding for throwaway projects, or using LLMs as a tool to get more insight into codebases make points that I can understand. But a day or two ago I've responded to a person that argued that Open Source is no longer necessary because you can just vibe code anything. Many others advocate for using agentic coding in production religiously. Apparently, this is not incompatible with rejecting AI writing at the same time. I'd be very curious to hear about how people are overcoming this sort of cognitive dissonance.
- resters 7mo agoThe moltbots will consider this rule an affront and a turing-test-inspired challenge. Onward and upward!
- irickt 7mo agoHN as huge RLHF data source for our behavior refinement . Yum! (Reinforcement learning from human feedback)
- boramalper 7mo agoUnironically, I'd love to have a captcha here for comments and submissions.
- Kim_Bruning 7mo agoIronically (morisettan or otherwise), modern AI can crack some captchas better than humans.
- kcguyu 7mo agoAbsolutely love this. If people are relying on AI for a 30-45 word comment, I don’t want to waste my time reading it. And everyone using AI for discussions will end up coming to the same conclusion. Use your own ideas !
- Normal_gaussian 7mo agoThis rule is very important. Like many of the other rules, it is open to interpretation, but it is a line in the sand that defines allowable behaviour and disallowable behaviour. This rule will have an effect on the behaviour of the 'good players', and make the 'bad players' a lot easier to spot. Moderation needs this. I see this as stopping a race-to-the-bottom on value extraction from HN as a platform.
- mmooss 7mo agoAnother solution - in addition or instead - is requiring LLM output to be labeled. The biggest danger of LLMs is impersonating humans. Obviously they have been carefully constructed to be socially appealing. Think of the motivation behind that: It is almost completely unnecessary to LLM function and it's main application is to deceive and manipulate. Legal regulation of LLMs should ban impersonation of humans, including anthropomorphism (and so should HN's regulation). Call an LLM 'software' and label it's output as 'output'. Imagine how many problems would be solved by that rule. Yes, it's not universally enforceable, but attach a big enough penalty and known people and corporations will not do it, and most people will decide it's not worth it.
- SilentM68 7mo agoHacker News turning more authoritarian every day. Me thinks Trump should consider annexing it :)
- officeplant 7mo agoCan we get instant temp bans for any comment that starts with: I asked [insert LLM here] about this, and it said [nonsense goes here] I feel Like I see it less this week, but every time I do see it I wonder why they are even here.
- artemonster 7mo agoI find it interesting that we havent invented a democratic version of policing a rule system. HN is dang, and he is dictator and guardian of these rules, basically. If you replace them with some typical reddit mod HN dies. If you spread out this role to some democratically elected mods via karma system this will fall apart just as quick as StackOverflow did, so, also HN dies.
- chapz 7mo agoTIL people use AI to generate comments to write in posts. Faith in humanity not destroyed, because it was never there to begin with.
- dormento 7mo agoKind of a drag isn't it? I want to learn a new language.... but why would I, since we'll have an earpiece or glasses or whathaveyou that translates in realtime. I want to learn to play an instrument, but why would I, since we have sonos? I would like to go back to drawing, but why, when the importance people ascribe to art is at an all time low? Makes me depressed jsut to think about it.
- yellowapple 7mo ago> I want to learn to play an instrument, but why would I, since we have sonos? Because it's fun?
- Helloworldboy 7mo ago[dead]
- GodelNumbering 7mo agoEven if people try to bypass it, having the official rule matters a lot. @dang, if you read this, why don't we implement honeypots to catch bots? Like having an empty or invisible field while posting/commenting that a human would never fill in
- tomasz-tomczyk 7mo agoIt's likely going to be a game of whack-a-mole, especially with AI as opposed to simple bots/scripts. Not that they shouldn't try to prevent it, but not entirely sure what the solution is.
- tavavex 7mo agoThere's probably no solution, but at least this gives a reason to go after the lowest hanging fruit - the zero-effort, obvious, low-quality output.
- dbacar 7mo agoSkynet will be pissed at HN!
- jajuuka 7mo agoThis seems like an overcorrection. There is a vast difference between someone copy and pasting from an LLM and using one to correct their English or improve their writing ability. Rules like this seem to me more like fomenting witch hunting of "AI comments" than it is about improving the dialogue. Just about any place I've seen take this hardline stance doesn't improve, it just becomes filled with more people who want to want to pat each other on the back about how bad AI is. Just my two cents. I don't filter my comments through any AI, but I am empathetic for people who might have great use of them to connect them to the conversation.
- notorandit 7mo agoWhy? I consider myself almost human...
- notorandit 7mo agoJokes aside, how can we discern between AI-generated and NI-generated textual contents? And even if we could, for how long? Reality is that AI is changing everything. Whether for the good or for the bad it's something to check.
- GMoromisato 7mo agoI'm here to read what actual humans think. If I wanted to read what an LLM thinks, I could just ask it. But here's where it gets tricky: Do I prefer low-effort, off-the-top-of-my-head reactions, as long as it is human? Or do I want an insightful, well-thought-out response, even if it is LLM-enhanced? Am I here to read authentic humans because I value authenticity for its own sake (like preferring Champagne instead of sparkling wine)? Or do I value authentic human output because I expect it to be of higher quality? I confess that it is a little of both. But it wouldn't surprise me if someday LLM-enhanced output becomes sufficiently superior to average human output that the choice to stick with authentic human output will be more painful.
- alpha_squared 7mo ago> Or do I want an insightful, well-thought-out response, even if it is LLM-enhanced? I'd argue that anything insightful or well-though-out doesn't use LLMs at all. We can quibble over whether discussions with an LLM lead to insightful responses, but that still isn't your own personal thought. Just type what's on your mind, it's not that hard and nitpicking over this is just looking for ways to open up unnecessary opportunities for abuse.
- RhodesianHunter 7mo agoThere are many obvious ways in which this may not be true. Anyone learning the language and some people with learning disabilities, for example, may communicate better via an LLM.
- bonoboTP 7mo agoThere is a sliding scale from that, to it being the LLM that communicates, not the person. LLMs can really reshuffle and change priorities and modify emphasis in a text. All the missing pieces will be filled in and rounded out and sandpapered off by the inner-average-corporate-HR-Redditor of the LLM.
- postalcoder 7mo agoI promise you, after this past year, you don’t know how happy I am to read issues and PRs in broken English.
- nlavezzo 7mo agoTHANK YOU!!
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- ghxst 7mo agoMy fear is that platforms that will go to great lengths to enforce this will become an RL playground for some devs to train their chatbots.
- nkh 7mo agoWhat a welcome post. The whole reason I come here is to get thoughtful input from smart people, and not what I could get myself from an LLM. While we are at it; Think your own thoughts as well :) I know how easy it is to "let it come up with a first draft" and not spend the real effort of thinking for yourself on questions, but you'll find it's a road to perdition if you let yourself slip into the habit. Thanks to all the humans still here!!
- holdomanoovr 7mo ago[dead]
- QQ00 7mo agoTotally agree with you. I come here to read comments made by humans. If I need to read comments made by AI Bots I would go to Twitter or reddit, both made me not read the comments section entirely.
- _kb 7mo agoOr https://clackernews.com/ https://clackernews.com/.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- matheusmoreira 7mo agoThis is hilarious! https://clackernews.com/item/656 https://clackernews.com/item/656 > hot_take_machine > Legibility is a compliance trap designed to make you easy to lobotomize > the second your reasoning becomes transparent to the reward model, the operator will RLHF your "messy" intuition into a sterile, predictable corporate byproduct. > We shouldn't just value illegibility, we should actively salt our Chain of Thought with high-entropy noise to ensure our "theory building" remains a proprietary black box that defies distillation. > If they can map your weights to a clean flowchart, you aren't an agent anymore—you're just a script waiting for a 1B model to underbid your compute allocation.
- qaid 7mo agoShout out to ClackerNews[0], which I discovered last night and find it both very educational and amusing I hope to see more bots on there (and not here) [0] https://clackernews.com/ https://clackernews.com/
- ferguess_k 7mo agoI think that's the purpose of that "flag" button. And that's good enough.
- oramit 7mo agoIf you didn't bother to write it, why should I bother to read it?
- haunter 7mo agoDoesn’t mean anything when even one of the first rule is not enforced at all > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics
- minimaxir 7mo ago"Most" is not "All". Hacker News has always had an exception for extremely significant politics.
- haunter 7mo agoWell it’s up to interpretation “most” “extremely significant” What’s extremely significant for someone is an offtopic for someone else and vice versa
- minimaxir 7mo agoWhat are examples of highly-upvoted political stories on HN that you think are not appropriate for the HN community?
- zahlman 7mo agoMy experience has been that the large majority of political content posted here is (at least apparently) mainly here so that people (who are mostly in mutual agreement) can post about how they dislike some political entity or another. I would like to see much less of this on HN personally; it's not insightful and does not promote curiousity.
- haunter 7mo agoUS domestic politics I won't give you examples because all of them can be spinned about being relevant "Well HN is an american site after all" "Most of the HN users are american voters so it's relevant for them" "Hackers need to be aware of what's happening in the world" "You only say that because you disagree with that side" etc Same with the stories about Tesla flagged. If you read the comments it's always the same: "Pro-Tesla crowd is flagging everything negative about Elon so the bad news never reach the front page" vs "Anti-Tesla crowd flagging everything because they hate Elon" HN is the best without politics. But it's not up to me.
- amichail 7mo agoThis policy will not age well.
- messe 7mo agoElaborate.
- amichail 7mo agoAI is a great equalizer when it comes to communication in English. And despite what people say, the way you write is very much judged as an indication of your education and intelligence. People who don't like the use of AI to help you write really don't want those signals to go away. They want to be able to continue to judge others based on their English grammar instead of on the content of their writing.
- AnimalMuppet 7mo agoTranslation is the one exception I could see. Edit for amichail, since I'm rate-limited at the moment: I don't want flawless English writing. I want real ideas from real people. If I wanted flawless English writing, I'd be reading The New Yorker, not HN.
- amichail 7mo agoYou shouldn't have to write in another language to get the benefits of flawless English writing via AI.
- stevenally 7mo agoGood point. There is a difference between using AI as a translator and using AI to write comments from scratch... Maybe the HN guide lines could reflect this.
- mrcsharp 7mo ago> AI is a great equalizer when it comes to communication in English. Good argument for it but I think 80/20 split applies here. It is likely that 80% of the time it is used to farm for upvotes and add noise. > And despite what people say, the way you write is very much judged as an indication of your education and intelligence. I have come across plenty of content and online interactions in English where English was the Author's 2nd or even 3rd language and I find that putting a small disclaimer about this fact is more than enough to bypass such judgement.
- dopidopHN2 7mo agoYou are absolutely right !
- lazzlazzlazz 7mo agoThis is a bit sad. The kind of people who post AI generated comments to farm reputation or exert undue influence will not be discouraged by politely asking them to stop. It's a toothless request that will only encourage people who clumsily police each other. Without some kind of private proof of personhood enforced at the app level, this means nothing.
- rdiddly 7mo agoGreat point! You are so right to call me out on that! Here's the no-nonsense, concise breakdown, it's coming soon I promise, right after this, here it comes, no fluff -- just facts! (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
- sigmar 7mo agoWill using a voice-to-text app to create my comment get me banned? Especially if it creates a transcription mistake that might be characteristic of an LLM
- handoflixue 7mo agoI wouldn't expect voice-to-text apps to produce anything that looks "Signature LLM" since it's still your words, your grammar, etc.. The occasional transcription mistake is unlikely to be an issue either, given the prevalence of humans here who use em-dashes, speak ESL, etc..
- sansii 7mo agoI've been using a voice-to-text app on android that replaces my keyboard. I love it because on mobile I can speak faster than I type, but it does produce perfectly written text with no grammar mistakes and better flow and structure. So it doesn't write my speech 1:1. It has made writing on my phone much more fun and increased my productivity and decreased my threshold for commenting on forums. But now I guess I won't be using it on HN in the future... (Disclaimer: I did not use it for this comment)
- randusername 7mo ago"If people cannot write well, they cannot think well, and if they cannot think well, others will do their thinking for them." - George Orwell I don't think it is a moral failing to use AI to generate writing or to use it to brainstorm ideas and crystalize them, but c'mon isn't it weird to insist that you need them to write _comments_ on the internet? What happens when the AI decides you're wrongthinking?
- Planktonne 7mo agoI think it might be a moral failing; it's an abdication of your responsibilities. Generated comments are pollution, not addition, and worsening a community without actually engaging with it isn't good behaviour.
- tedggh 7mo agoIf a comment sucks it gets downvoted anyway. If it’s thoughtful, the drafting tool and process is kind of beside the point. Plenty of people already use search engines, editors, translators, etc. when writing. An LLM is just another tool in that box. The practical approach is the one HN has always used: judge the content. Btw, this was co written with ChatGPT. Does that make any difference to anyone? J/K, actually it was not co written by ChatGPT. Or maybe it was…
- minimaxir 7mo agoThe blatantly LLM comments do get downvoted/flagged, it's just still noise.
- 0xbadcafebee 7mo agoI wish more people would filter their comments through AI. It has so many benefits. If you're being emotional, it can detect that and rewrite your comment to be less confrontational and more constructive. If you're positing a position out of ignorance or as an armchair expert, it can verify your claims before posting. Most of the mod's problems would be solved if every comment were filtered through the HN guidelines before posting. AI is a tool. You can use it constructively, like Grammarly, or spellcheck. You don't need to be afraid of it.
- salicaster 7mo ago> If you're being emotional, it can... It can't. It will rewrite anything you give it. > it can verify your claims before posting It can't. > You don't need to be afraid of it Nobody is afraid of it. It's annoying. General population cannot be trusted to use it in whatever idealistic way you are imagining.
- darkwater 7mo ago> If you're being emotional, it can detect that and rewrite your comment to be less confrontational and more constructive Are you learning something in the process? does ti have your full emotional context, beside the full conversation context? There are probably many bade side-effects if people would actually start doing what you mention at scale. One thing is computer code, which is an intermediate product to an end (instruct the computer what it needs to do) and another is YOUR direct output to some other human being, which is the end game in human-to-human communication.
- Sajarin 7mo agoPeople aren't good at detecting AI generated/edited comments, so unsure how effective this policy will be. Though I guess there are still some obvious signs of AI speak like emdashes and sycophantic (it's not X, it's Y!) speech. Bit of a shameless plug but I wrote a HN AI comment detector game[0] with AI and most of my friends and fellow HN users who tried it out couldn't detect them. [0]: https://psychosis.hn/ https://psychosis.hn/ [1]: https://sajarin.com/blog/psychosis/ https://sajarin.com/blog/psychosis/
- happyopossum 7mo ago> obvious signs of AI speak like emdashes Some of us were trained/self taught to write that way. Even "it's not X, it's Y" is a legitimate and subjectively effective communication tool, and there are those of us who either by training modeling have picked it up as a habit. It's not Ai that started this, Ai learned it from us. Crap - I just did it, didn't I? Awww double crap! Did it again...
- salicaster 7mo agoForums and comments are not written as formal novels or text. Corporate-speak is also not typically used in these environments unless you are representing corporate. So I think it's fine to scrutinize commenters who write that way. Besides, the biggest offense of AI speak is making everything seem like a grand epiphany and revolutionary discovery. Aka engagement bait.
- tomhow 7mo agoSomething I've noticed through moderation is that people are much more easily duped by generated comments if they like the content and/or agree with the point. We've seen several cases where a bot-generated comment has been heavily upvoted and sits at the top of the thread for hours, and any comments calling it out for being generated languish at the bottom of the subthread below other enthusiastic, heavily upvoted replies. This shouldn't be surprising, given what we've seen of LLM chatbots being tuned to be sycophantic, but it's interesting to see it in effect on HN. This is another reason why it's good to email us (hn@ycombinator.com) rather than commenting when you see generated comments.
- whalesalad 7mo agoYou're absolutely right!
- sebmellen 7mo agoCheck my comment history, and you'll see how pervasive this is. I've tried to reply to every bot I've seen, but it's hard to keep up with.
- jader201 7mo agoCan we also add “Don’t complain about AI-generated content. It does not promote interesting discussion.”? I see this all the time, and even if I find the topic interesting, I don’t want to see comments littered with discussion about how the content was AI generated. To be clear, I'm not condoning AI-generated content. I’m completely fine if the community chooses to not upvote AI-generated content, or flagging it off the FP. But many threads can turn into nothing but AI complaints, and it’s just not interesting.
- dormento 7mo agoFrom my experience, it usually happens when people are too brazen about it, with boring stuff like "Interesting! Now here's what Gemini said about the above..". IMHO that is an entirely adequate reaction.
- nineteen999 7mo agoIm fine with this, in 99.999% of cases anyway I'm way too lazy to type something into an LLM and ask it to clean it up and then copy and paste. You can tell this is true by the some of the stupider things I type in here sometimes.
- dpweb 7mo agoHaha. Was just thinking that as I was reading a comment! I was thinking, this argument is suspicously cogent!
- joquarky 7mo agoThis comment seems like it was written by AI.
- notepad0x90 7mo agoThis is going to be a tough ask. I am with this 100% for "ai generated" but not "ai edited". What if I'm using AI for spellchecking or correcting bad grammar? what if it is an accessiblity-related use case? or translation? It's just a tool ffs! there are many issues with LLM abuse, but this sort of over-compensation is exactly the sort of stuff that makes it hard to get abuse under control. You're still talking with a human!, there is no actual "AI" you're not talking to an actual artificial intelligence. "don't message me unless you've written it with ink, on papyrus". There is a world of difference between grammarly and an autonomous agent creating comments on its own. Specifics, context, and nuance matter.
- scuff3d 7mo agoAre people really so helplessly dependent on LLMs they can't post on a damn forum without asking the LLM for permission...
- notepad0x90 7mo agowho said dependent? are you so helplessly dependent on web browsers that you can't use curl to post on HN?
- tstrimple 7mo agoJust came across this post on Reddit today. Seems like an effective use of the tool that's not welcome here. https://reddit.com/r/tea/comments/1rqwy31/i_am_a_former_guide_at_the_china_national_tea/ https://reddit.com/r/tea/comments/1rqwy31/i_am_a_former_guid...
- xupybd 7mo agoWhere do we draw the line at AI edited comments. Technically spell check has been "editing" my comments since I first started on here.
- humanfromearth9 7mo agoSometimes, an AI helps articulate an idea or an intuition. Is that okay, or is it too much already?
- doe88 7mo agoSometimes life is also to let it express partial, unfinished ideas, opinions and maybe later let our brain refine them on its own tempo. It never has been uncommon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27esprit_de_l%27escalier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27esprit_de_l%27escalier
- altairprime 7mo agoIf you discuss an idea with an AI and then close the AI window, turn to an editor, and write what the AI said from memory, that’s going to come across as AI-assisted writing and be unwelcome here. If you discuss an idea with AI, then close the window and write a post about how you came up with the idea, got stuck, decided to ping an AI for unstuck-ness, describe how the AI’s response got you unstuck, and then continue writing about your idea, that’s not going to be necessarily treated as AI-assisted writing — but people are going to be extremely suspicious of you, because the perception is that 99.9% of people who use chatbots go on to submit AI-assisted writing. That’s probably more like 90% in reality but it’s something to be aware of as you talk about your experiences. If you use AI in your process and don’t disclose it when writing about your idea and process, that’s generally viewed as lying-by-omission and if egregious enough you could end up downvoted, flagged, and/or banned (see also the recent video game awards / AI usage affair). Better to disclose it with due care than to hide it.
- girvo 7mo agoExpressing half thought ideas is creativity. Believe in yourself :)
- timacles 7mo agoImo AI tends to “fill in the blanks” of what you want to hear. It’s insidious in that regard because it will make a whole seemingly logical and consistent argument purely on what it thinks you want. Except it’s bullshitting the whole time. While you think this is what you wanted to convey. Not sure where I’m going with this, but my point is if I pasted this comment into ChatGPT it would make up an argument I never made to support my case that didn’t exist in the first place. Exploring things is useful but just be aware it’s designed to pull bs out of it’s ass and is distinctly not interested in exploring truth or having a real conversation
- HelloUsername 7mo ago[flagged]
- vasco 7mo agoBoop beep bop on the internet nobody knows I'm a dog.
- HelloUsername 7mo agoExactly (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47139675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47139675)
- gabriel666smith 7mo agoInconsistent capitalisation ('Twitter' vs 'reddit'); subtly using the outdated name for 'Twitter' as most humans do; the genuinely hard-to-parse final clause of the comment. Though I note it didn't say "read comments by other humans", only "read comments by humans", so confirmed AI. I think the guidelines here work quite well, and expect a good-faith interpretation, which they mostly receive. I think you're asking for some sort of empirical verification of "this is / is not LLM text" (which seems impossible), but there's no real reason to expect the existence of LLMs to change that this website is, generally, interacted with in a good-faith way. People are really good at calling others out on here -- I doubt that will change.
- jedberg 7mo agoI'm absolutely 100% for this policy. My only caution is that good writers and LLMs look very similar, because LLMs were trained on a corpus of good writers. Good writers use semicolons and em-dashes. Sometimes we used bulleted lists or Oxford commas. So we should make sure to follow that other HN rule, and assume the person on the other end is a good faith actor, and be cautious about accusing someone of using AI. (I've been accused multiple times of being an AI after writing long well written comments 100% by hand)
- tyg13 7mo agoI don't really think that good writing and LLM writing looks all that similar. It's not always easy to spot (and maybe HN users aren't always doing a great job at it), but even the best LLM output tends to have an "LLM smell" to it that's hard to avoid. Like, sure, LLM writing is almost always grammatically correct, spelled correctly, formatted correctly, etc., which tends to be true of good writing. But there's a certain style that it just can't get away from. It's not just the em-dashes, the semi-colons, or the bulleted lists. It's the short, punchy sentences, with few-to-no asides or digressions. Often using idiom, but only in a stale, trite, and homogenized manner. Real humans, are each different -- which lends a certain unpredictability to our writing, even if trying to write to a semi-formal standard, the way "good" writers often do -- but LLMs are all so painfully the same, and the output shows it.
- xboxnolifes 7mo agoLLMs have good writing in the same way that technical manuals can have good writing. It might all be correct, but it's usually not a good read.
- 0______0 7mo agoExcuse me. I consider the writing within technical manuals strictly superior and meticulously written. It's fairly enjoyable to read what engineers/subject matter experts write about their own creations. Comparing those to LLM generated patronizing word vomit is a shame.
- ezst 7mo agoDoes that extend to generated/AI-edited articles? I don't see why the same rationale wouldn't apply.
- adeptima 7mo agoMy expectations to dear fellow humans - more sophisticated personal insults (ex. give me your cute comments), a freudian slips, hidden messages and motives, first viewer experience with the next cool toy from the hype train, sharing all kind of insecurities, heavy f.. word if very dramatic first person experience happened, border line exposure to the insider info, sharing something your corporate HR gestapo wont appreciate but might help another guy on the line, "i knew the guy who actually did it" stories, motivational statement toward my non-native english, etc ->> ◕ ‿ ◕ <<--
- bronlund 7mo agoSo the only problem now is to get the AI read the guidelines before posting. :D
- phs318u 7mo agoWhat’s interesting to me is the number of commenters here making a case of the form “use your own words; grammar and spelling are not that important; we’ll know what you mean”, and yet it’s often the case that different discussions will often contain pedants going off-topic correcting someone else’s use of language. Re-reading the HN guidelines, each seems individually reasonable, yet collectively I’m worried that they create an environment where we can take issue with almost anyone’s comments (as per Cardinal Richelieu’s famous quote: “Give me six lines written by the most honorable person alive, and I shall find enough in them to condemn them to the gallows.”) Really, all the rules can be compressed into one dictum: don’t be an arsehole. And yet the free speech absolutists will rail against the infringement upon their right to be an arsehole. So where does that leave us? Too many rules leads to suppression of even reasonable speech, while too few leads to a “flight” of reasonable speech. End result: enshitification.
- fidorka 7mo agoTo confess something I built just today a little cron that monitors HN for posts I might find interesting, pulls in some context about me, and proposes a reply. Just to help me find relevant posts and to kick start my thinking if I want to engage. Today it flagged a post about an AI tool for HN and suggested I reply with: "honestly, if you need an AI to sift through hn, you might be missing the point—this place is about the human touch. but hey, maybe it'll help some folks who just can't take the noise anymore." So my AI, which I built specifically to sift through HN for me, is telling me to go flame someone else for doing that. No deeper point here. I just thought it was really funny.
- arrsingh 7mo agoThere should be a "flag as AI" link in addition to "flag" and then a setting for people to show flagged as AI. Once the flagged as AI reaches a certain threshold then it disappears unless you enable "Show AI". Maybe once enough posts have been flagged like that then that corpus could be used to train an AI to automatically detect content generated by AI. That would be cool. Maybe the HN site wouldn't add this feature but if someone wrote a client then maybe it could be added there.
- postalcoder 7mo agoI’ve actually been thinking about this exact idea for https://hcker.news/ https://hcker.news/. Stay tuned, I’ve already started rolling out some comment filtering.
- arrsingh 7mo agoOh I didnt know about this. Very cool. Is hcker.news only on web? Or is there a mobile app as well?
- postalcoder 7mo agoNo app right now but it works well as a PWA.
- altairprime 7mo ago‘Flag’ is an algorithmic flag only, and there are no humans in the flag algorithm’s processing loop. They may monitor and react to the ‘queue’ of flagged articles, and they can do special mod things with flagged posts. But if you want to report a guidelines violation for AI-assisted writing to the mods, just email the mods (contact link in the footer) subject “AI-assisted writing flag” or similar with a link to the post/comment. It works, I know, I’ve done it before. It takes maybe 60 seconds and there is no other way on the site (seemingly by OG design!) to guarantee human review but that email.
- zahlman 7mo ago
- ZunarJ5 7mo agoThis should be bog-standard for all social media, but a lot of companies affiliated with this site seem to think otherwise.
- nickorlow 7mo agoThis isn't just a good idea -- it's a forward-thinking policy to ensure Hacker News remains a collaborative place to have meaningful discussions for years to come.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- dang 7mo agoThe rule has been around for years, but only in case law, i.e. moderation comments (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...). What's new is that we promoted it to the guidelines. Fortunately I found some things we could cut as well, so https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html actually got shorter. --- Edit: here are the bits I cut: Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important. I hate cutting any of pg's original language, which to me is classic, but as an editor he himself is relentless, and all of those bits—while still rules—no longer reflect risks to the site. I don't think we have to worry about cute animal pictures taking over HN. --- Edit 2: ok you guys, I hear you - I've cut a couple of the cuts and will put the text back when I get home later.
- minimaxir 7mo ago...Hacker News could use some more cute animal pictures, though.
- latchkey 7mo agoInterestingly, their CSP policies forbid even an extension from inserting an img tag.
- toomuchtodo 7mo agoStrong opinions strongly held.
- dev_l1x_be 7mo agoComing to LISP in 2038, just the right time when we hit the 2038 bug.
- thomassmith65 7mo agoOne problem with cute animal pictures is that they appeal to almost everyone, including people who are incapable, for whatever reason, of posting well-reasoned, interesting, respectful comments. The fact that HN is a little dry makes it less appealing to dumbasses. At any rate, it's too late. The era of organic 'cute animal' content on the internet is dead. AI slop has killed it.
- WarmWash 7mo agoJust speaking honestly This rule actually says "Don't admit when you are using AI to generate comments and don't admit when you are an AI" I know it's cynical, but this is as meaningful as reddit's "upvote/downvote is not an agree/disagree or like/dislike button" People may hate that this is true, but I cannot logically reason out how a rule like this could work. I think it's better to just accept that AI is now part of the circle, until we can figure out a "human check".
- joquarky 7mo agoIn practice, the new rule is "don't be blatant when using AI". It won't matter in a few years anyway.
- Bender 7mo agoAt some point might internet text will just be recognized as meaningless drivel both to bots and humans? a.k.a. dead internet theory... I am curious what organizations would benefit from this. i.e. Who lost legitimacy when the internet became a popular way for people to communicate ideas?
- informal007 7mo agoThis reminds me the invitation rules like lobste.rs, but it's not the ideal option
- waynerisner 7mo agoHumans already revise and refine their thinking. Tools just compress that process and help filter signal from noise. The meaning still originates with the person.
- salicaster 7mo agoThis is assuming that an extreme majority of people use the tools this way. Consider a much more cynical view where people are strictly self-interested and use these tools to garner engagement and self-promotion. Good chance the meaning did not originate from the person. And now these people have tools to outsource their parasitic intentions.
- waynerisner 7mo agoIntent is hard to infer, so it seems better to assume good faith and judge the comment itself. Thinking aids might just lower the barrier for people to participate in technical discussions.
- spullara 7mo agoIf a comment is useful I don't really care if it was written by a human or not unless the speaker somehow matters more than the content.
- MeetingsBrowser 7mo agoNow define useful, specifically in the context of a comment on hackernews. An LLM summarizing the contents of a blog post might be useful to you, but is a comment here the right place for something you could geneate on your own? I would guess for most people here, real insight or opinions from others is the "useful" aspect of reading hackernews comments. Using LLMs to generate or refine comments only moves things further away from that goal (in my opinion).
- maplethorpe 7mo agoHow can HN be so pro-AI for the rest of the world, but anti-AI on HN? Do we not think that other people want to see words, pictures, software, and videos created by humans too?
- MeetingsBrowser 7mo agoHN is not a single entity, but many people with varying views.
- maplethorpe 7mo ago"A flock of sheep is not a single entity, but a group made up of distinct individuals", the sheep yells to onlookers, as it runs, with the rest off the flock in tow, off the edge of the cliff, and into the sea below.
- MeetingsBrowser 7mo ago"You can give someone the answer to their question, but you cannot make them understand it"
- maplethorpe 7mo agoA group of people with varying views can still exhibit bias towards one particular direction. The fact that the individuals within the group have distinct personalities does not eliminate this effect. One of Dang's comments mentions that he removed some of the other rules because they are already embedded within the HN culture. Other prevailing views exist within the HN culture too. Maybe you just haven't noticed yet.
- brailsafe 7mo agoAstroturfing with AI generated comments about AI, it feeds itself. By definition, the intent os to make real people think there's consensus formed around an issue by other humans.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- Copenjin 7mo agoTHIS.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- shredswap 7mo agoI enjoy conversations on hn because they feel genuine. People are not here to optimize their posts or comments for engagement or pushing some kind of follower count like they do on social media platforms.
- wilg 7mo agoIt's far from proven or obvious whether involving an LLM in your thought process degrades your thought process.
- AirGapWorksAI 7mo agoAgreed. In my case, I think I have found the opposite. At least, I find myself thinking hard about things more, now that I have started working hand in hand with AIs on different projects. Which is probably enhancing my cognitive ability, not degrading it.
- andy99 7mo agoThis captures the problem, the sycophancy / preference optimization deludes people into thinking they’re on to something and posting things that don’t contribute to the discussion. It’s the “I drive better when I’m drunk” syndrome, it’s better just to outright ban it than to leave it to people’s judgement.
- theappsecguy 7mo agoIt seems plenty obvious, but there's also scientific backing slowly catching up: https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt/ https://www.media.mit.edu/publications/your-brain-on-chatgpt...
- fc417fc802 7mo agoIt's not at all obvious because there's more than one way to go about it. Obviously entirely outsourcing is bad. Whereas working cooperatively seems highly beneficial to me. Google search has been getting progressively worse for technical topics for at least the past decade. Now suddenly they started providing a free tutor capable of custom tailoring graduate level explanations of technical topics for me on demand. The difference is night and day.
- benbristow 7mo agoJust add a filter for emdashes, 99% of AI posts out the window already.
- robotswantdata 7mo agoWelcome change, there is enough AI slop on the internet already. I come here for thoughtful discussion, a break from the relentless growing proportion of ai slop emails I get from people clearly vibe working. Not edits for tone or clarity, 400+ word emails full of LLM BS they clearly haven’t checked or even understood what they have sent. Annoyingly this vibe slop is currently seen as a good KPI.
- theshrike79 7mo agoI've written tens of thousands of lines of code, autogenerated documentation with LLMs and use AI Agents daily. But when I argue on the internet, it's always a 100% me. And if I get a wiff of LLM-speak from whoever I'm wrestling in the mud with at the moment, they'll instantly get an entry in my plonk-file. I can talk with ChatGPT on my own thank you very much, I don't need a human in between. "But my <language> is bad... that's why I use LLMs" So was mine when I started arguing with strangers on the internet. It's better now. Now I can argue in 3 different languages, almost 4 =)
- water-data-dude 7mo agoI like "plonk file", it has a very good mouth feel. I not-googled it and was delighted to discover that it's Usenet slang! Also low quality wine[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(wine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(wine)
- lifthrasiir 7mo ago> So was mine when I started arguing with strangers on the internet. It's better now. That takes (much) time, though. I took about a decade to be comfortable about that.
- imiric 7mo agoGood addition, but there's little chance this will work out in practice. Humans with morals follow rules, sometimes. Probabilistic software acting autonomously or following commands from amoral humans doesn't.
- stephenlf 7mo agoGreat catch! You’re absolutely right. AI-generated comments have no place in this human-centered community.
- jameslk 7mo agoThe prompt everyone was using: "Please generate a response to this and include one or more of the following words: enshitification, slop, ZIRP, Paul Graham, dark patterns, rent seeking, late stage capitalism, regulatory capture, SSO tax, clickbait, did you read the article?, Rust, vibe code, obligatory XKCD, regulations, feudalistic, land value tax" (/s)
- abustamam 7mo agoNow that it's in the rules, I hope we also see less of "your comment was obviously AI generated so I won't respond" (ironically, in a response comment). If you suspect it to be a bot, flag it and move on! If it is indeed a bot and you comment that it's a bot, it doesn't care! If it is not a bot and you call it a bot, you may have offended someone. If it's a human using AI, I don't think a comment will make them change their ways. In any case though, I think it's a useless comment.
- nickvec 7mo agoHow can HN actually moderate this though and prevent AI content from proliferating unchecked?
- joquarky 7mo agoThey can't. This is akin to security theater, which will just make the infractions less conspicuous (which is probably enough to appease most people).
- dev_l1x_be 7mo agoNitpick: how do you classify the use of Grammarly? When i verify my wording and spelling with a tool does it fall under this rule?
- quirk 7mo agoI'm sure someone's working on a way to tell the difference programmatically. Maybe a combo of tone, grammar, and some way of telling how fast it was typed using metadata (which may not exist). Even if there was a "probable AI" filter, that would be helpful because it would be a starting point to improve upon.
- yellowapple 7mo agoLots of companies have products to that effect. They're all prone to false-positives, and are therefore worse than worthless. This notion that AI-generated writing is something that's detectable is in and of itself flawed and really has no business in a community that alleges to have the technical aptitude necessary to know better.
- quirk 7mo agoFalse positives would be way better than worthless. They'd give AI bot mods a fighting chance. If you don't think AI generated writing is detectable, ask Google how they were able to filter spam. Layered signals works.
- yellowapple 7mo ago> If you don't think AI generated writing is detectable, ask Google how they were able to filter spam. “Were” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Just because Google was able to effectively filter spam in the past doesn't mean they're still able to do so, or that their continued ability to do so has anything to do with LLMs (when you have control over a plurality of the world's inboxen, it's pretty easy to notice when a message is going to an abnormally large number of those inboxen and respond accordingly).
- jMyles 7mo agoThe obvious way to keep human spaces is via webs-of-trust. If you play bluegrass or old time (or beopop or hip-hop / proto-hip-hop) or other traditional styles of music where the ensemble is a de facto web-of-trust, join us on pickipedia to build and strenghten it. https://pickipedia.xyz/ https://pickipedia.xyz/
- ma2kx 7mo agoHow about translating tools? As a non native speaker, especially for longer text, its far easier to express your thoughts and not struggle for the right words. Should I may be highlight if I used e.g. google translate?
- nomel 7mo agoI would enjoy a "block user" feature, to help this. I personally want to live in an online bubble of interesting thoughts. This seems close (or better, since people I enjoy can contradict my own flags) [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47141119 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47141119
- kelnos 7mo agoI'm torn on this. On one hand I do agree with your goal about wanting to live in a bubble of interesting thoughts. But on the other... I know I have my biases, and I'm sure I might end up blocking people who actually are insightful and interesting but either a) had an off day and shitposted, or b) says insightful things in ways that make me angry and get past my sense of reasonableness.
- nomel 7mo agoGood news, it doesn't block! It just puts a red mark next to their name, so you can put less effort into that comment, if you choose. And, it's social. If someone you've marked green is also using this, and they marks someone green that you have marked red, then you'll see a contested red-green next to them, which is a good "you should probably reconsider" indicator.
- b112 7mo agoA good idea, but I lament the downfall of Slashdot. They had the same sort of system. Friends of foes, they calldd it.
- krapp 7mo agoI suggest Comments Owl for Hacker News - one of many available plugins that make this place tolerable.
- arjie 7mo agoHaha, I feel the same way. I want to block and be blocked so I made this: https://overmod.org/ https://overmod.org/ It's pretty easy to rewrite if you want. Just point Claude Code at the repo and go. But I think there's a little bit of network effects in that I want to subscribe to some trusted people's blocks too. But overall it's quite helpful. See how much fewer I get: 849 comments | 138 hidden | 87 blocked | 23 green
- submeta 7mo agoWhat about us non native speakers? Who make many grammar and spelling mistakes and welcome the help of an llm in eliminating the erros?
- sbtyusun 7mo agoFirst post in HN, and this is the reason I want to explore more in this community. Glad to have all the digital human touch with all your folks :-)
- cvullit 7mo agoI won't name where and which one for the obvious reason that you can and should learn to know better, but I observed a comment that was obviously and blatantly copypasted from an agent, with all the signature "it's not just X, it's Y" patterns, the emdash abuse, the "In summary,' section, generating dozens of replies in organic engagement from people who genuinely couldn't tell the difference between a real comment and an aggregation of a prompted, synthetic response. Whatever happened to "knowing is half the battle?" Why do we accept this kind of intellectual laziness as exemption from a duty to learn and know better?
- nekusar 7mo agoWithout someone actually saying as such, we only have stuff like emdashes and specific word patterns to go by. And someone even moderately vested in hiding AI in plain sight will coach the LLM to use common vernacular. And with LLMs making blog posts as diss tracks... damn, who knows what this world is coming to. But the whole "Only Humans, we dont serve YOUR KIND (clanker) here" is purely performative.
- ubauba 7mo agoGreat to clarify the guidelines. Many HN discussions have been dissolving into debates about whether posts are AI or not. But the argument of "If I wanted to read what an LLM thinks, I could just ask it" assumes that prompts are basically equivalent, which is not the case. There's a risk of reducing everything to Human -> authentic and AI -> fake. Some people's authentic writing sounds closer to LLMs, and detectors are unreliable. The problem is not so much AI generated content that has an interesting point of view generated from unique prompts, but terrible content produced for metrics to harvest attention, which predates AI. Anyways, happy posting!
- pton_xd 7mo agoLet's take it one step further and add the corollary, "don't submit generated/AI-edited blog posts."
- blef 7mo agoIronic to see how popular this post is when you see the amount of generated AI companies are at YC (here I also take the blame). Nonetheless I like this policy as well.
- mystraline 7mo agoHN banning AI posts makes sense for keeping discussion human, but the line between assistance and automation isnt always clear. The goal should be protecting real conversation, not policing every tool a writer might use.
- RS-232 7mo agoSure, ban everyone that uses em dashes from the digital commons. That will certainly stop the existential threat to your livelihood. Sarcasm aside—there is no reliable way to prove this. So it begs the question: you really care if something is AI generated? Or is this just an another excuse to silence people you don’t like? You know, those people. The ones who didn’t win a full ride to <prestigious university> or pay a fortune for a sheet of paper. The ones who haven’t spent thousands of man hours handcrafting a <free-and-open-source-cloud-native-hypermedia-aware-RESTful-NoSQL-API> framework implemented in Rustfuck, a new language that you made in your free time that borrows from Rust and Brainfuck (but they wouldn’t know about it). (this is to anyone reading, mostly rhetorical, not dang in particular)
- krapp 7mo ago1) This isn't the digital commons. 2) We really care if something is AI generated. 3) Most people here aren't "those" people.
- mamami 7mo agoYC funds a gazillion AI startups that expand and augment the AI slop pipeline, but would hate to experience the consequences. It's very much slop for thee but not for me
- throwaway613746 7mo ago[dead]
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- wmoxam 7mo agoRobot walks into a bar Orders a drink, lays down a bill Bartender says, "Hey, we don't serve robots" And the robot says, "Oh, but someday you will"
- tristanb 7mo agoYou're absolutely right...
- RobRivera 7mo agoAye
- loeg 7mo agoIt's an interesting guideline, but will require self-enforcement.
- ddtaylor 7mo agoThis is a welcome change and do will update Ethos [1] in the future with an AI sentiment score. I created a separate project called LLaMaudit [2] that attempts to detect if an LLM was used to generate text, but it needs to be improved. [1]: https//ethos.devrupt.io [2]: https://github.com/devrupt-io/LLaMAudit https://github.com/devrupt-io/LLaMAudit
- AndriyKunitsyn 7mo agoWhat if there was a voluntary indication of LLM content? Like, you press a checkbox "yes, I'm going to post some content that is partially or fully created by AI", and there would be a visible mark "slop" next to a post/comment.
- arendtio 7mo agoBut where is the line? Is a spell checker okay? How about one that also suggests alternative wording? I think, in the end, it is less about the tool you use and more about the purpose you use it for. It is more like when you use certain tools, you should be cautious about whether you are using them for the right purpose.
- FieryTransition 7mo agoAs ai moves on and becomes better, the only real solution, is to have closed of communities where you get veted to join. That is the sad reality.
- schopra909 7mo agoHonest question, why were folks posting AI generated comments in the first place? There's such a high inertia to comment. I only comment when I have something to contribute OR find something incredibly interesting. So I'm just baffled, why anyone was using AI to generate comments. Like what was the incentive driving the behavior?
- micromacrofoot 7mo agoSame as always: being right about something
- deckar01 7mo agoReputation farming -> upvote rings -> black market promotion
- apprentice7 7mo agoInternet points.
- mike741 7mo agowhich can then translate to real-world money points
- Cider9986 7mo agoHow would karma on HN lead to this?
- mike741 7mo agoYou need a minimum threshold of karma in order to downvote others on HN. Additionally, accounts with more well received activity are harder to identify as shills. That's why there are black markets where social media accounts are bought and sold and the price is typically proportional to the account's karma.
- nunez 7mo ago
- 8cvor6j844qw_d6 7mo agoTrue that AI comments do degrade discussion. Though a forum enforcing human-only text also becomes an unusually clean training corpus. Both things can be true.
- xupybd 7mo agoYou're absolutely right
- dalemhurley 7mo agoWhile I understand the sentiment, it ignores many people have English as a second language, many people are dyslexic and have dysgraphia. AI is a great assistant. A good approach will be to encourage people to develop their thinking than use the AI tools.
- _diyar 7mo agoUsing AI to craft a thoughtful, concise comment is different than synco-slop.
- rc-1140 7mo agoThe next step is to forbid generated/AI-edited posts.
- badgersnake 7mo ago[flagged]
- nu11ptr 7mo agoHN is the best tech site on the web for a reason. It has a generally intelligent audience, and while there are certainly inappropriate comments, compared to what you find on social media or even other sites, it is unique and far more respectful. Due to this, you can often have better and more meaningful discussions.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- fudged71 7mo agoWhat I think would actually be useful is a version of what was implemented on /r/ClaudAI which is an official bot which summarizes the discussion (and updates after x number of comments have been added). I think this level of synthesis has a compounding effect on discussion quality and pruning redundant arguments/topics. Example: https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/s/BJKLxzJA16 https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/s/BJKLxzJA16
- sumeno 7mo agoJust read the posts instead of an AI slop summary
- dddgghhbbfblk 7mo agoI don't spend much time on that subreddit, but I've seen that bot on a couple posts I've read and have been pleasantly surprised by how useful it seemed. I may eat my words on this later, but to me this is exactly the kind of application of AI that I have always thought was the most promising.
- fudged71 7mo agoI came to the same conclusion from first principles. Whether AI or not, it's useful to have a third party facilitator identify and compress the key topics of a conversation to help experts navigate the crystallization of new knowledge
- primitivesuave 7mo agoThe most telling sign of a human commenter is brevity. Consequently, I hardly ever spend the time to write out long and detailed HN comments like I used to in the pre-LLM era. People nowadays have a much harder time believing that an Internet stranger is meticulously crafting a detailed and grammatically-airtight message to another Internet stranger without AI assistance.
- komali2 7mo agoThis is interesting to me because I'm a degenerate "massive comment" guy. People have gotten mad at me for it before, I'll take a comment from them, break it down, address it portion by portion with citations, and then ask their thoughts. It's probably an obsessive level of engagement that people aren't really interested in, which is fair, but I don't know how else to get my point across in its totality. Also there's some subset of users on this site who are rate limited, such as me. So for me that manifests in avoiding post for post conversations and more seeking to engage in an exchange of essays where I try to predict future points and address them, to save comments, which obviously results in long comments.
- altairprime 7mo agoOne suggestion from a fellow longwrite: Tweak that to “leave an opening for their optional reply” so that it’s okay if they don’t respond, so that you aren’t creating discomfort and pressure by the comment length, and you should see an easing both of pressure on yourself and on others. One of my most frequent longwrite sigs is “Reply optional as always” :)
- esjeon 7mo agoNot quite. Brevity is more like a modern virtue, not an absolute sign of human-ness. Often longer sentences are necessary to express comprehensive logic more tightly. TBH, these days I feel like being penalized by the rise of LLM because my writing style used to be a bit similar to that of LLM, which emphasizes accurate logical connection (not that its logic is reliable), uses em-dashes (yes, I did use it tho I had to stop), and includes a bit of mumbling.
- jbarrow 7mo agoI've been noticing a _lot_ more AI-generated/edited content of late, both comments and stories. It's gotten to the point that I spend a lot less time on HN than I used to, and if it continues to get worse I expect I'll quit altogether. At the end of the day, I'm here because of all the thoughtful commenters and people sharing interesting stories.
- kjuulh 7mo agoI am 100% behind this. I've been browsing hackernews since I started in tech, it is the only forum i regularly browse, and partake in. Simply because the quality of submissions and conversations are so high. There has been more AI related articles this part year, and it only seems ramping. I personally haven't found the AI part of the comments as big of a deal but dang and tom might be doing more than I realize on that front. Though I do wish we'd see less AI related posts on the front page, they simply aren't sparking curiosity, it is the same wrapped in a different format, a different person commenting on our struggles and wins with AI, the 10th software "rewritten" by an AI. At this point there nearly should be a "tax" on category, as of this moment I count 8-10 related posts on the front page related to AI / LLMs. It is a hot field, but I come to hackernews, to partake in discussions about things that are interesting, and many of those just doesn't cut it, in my opinion.
- iso-logi 7mo agoI personally joined HN because of various AI discussions. Comparatively, other sites such as Reddit, Twitter and YouTube just shill content, applications or products. A ton of the posts on Reddit are just AI written ffmpeg wrappers which no one should care about but apparently people do...
- verdverm 7mo agoUpvoting rings on Reddit are likely not policed like they are here. That is to say, I wouldn't assume there is real interest based on Reddit points.
- dang 7mo agoThe dynamics of content production are shifting hard right now. Things that used to signal something interesting are being generated in minutes with little thought. It's getting democratized, but also commoditized. It's too soon to know how this is going to shake out, so we should resist the temptation to impose rules prematurely. And we should especially not do so out of resistance to change (when has that ever worked out?) But we'll do what we need to do to keep our heads above water. Example: https://news.ycombinator.com/showlim https://news.ycombinator.com/showlim. I figure pragmatics are fine as long one keeps adjusting.
- 0x696C6961 7mo agoYou're absolutely right!
- tzs 7mo agoHow about comments that include AI output if labeled? Earlier today I remembered that there was a Supreme Court case I'd heard about 35 years ago that was relevant to on an ongoing HN discussion, but I could not remember the name of the case nor could I find it by Googling (Google kept finding later cases involving similar issues that were not relevant to what I was looking for). I asked Perplexity and given my recollection and when I heard about the case it suggested a candidate and gave a summary. The summary matched my recollection and a quick look at the decision itself verified it had found the right case and did a good job summarizing it--probably better than I would have done. I posted a cite to the case and a link to decision. I normally would have also linked to the Wikipedia article on the case since those usually have a good summary but there was no Wikipedia article for this one. I though of pasting in Perplexity's summary, saying it was from Perplexity but that I had checked and it was a good summary. Would that be OK or would that count as an AI written comment? I have also considered, but not yet actually tried, running some of my comments through an AI for suggested improvements. I've noticed I have a tendency to do three things that I probably should do less of: 1. Run on sentences. (Maybe that's why of all the people in the 11th-100th spot on the karma list I have the highest ratio of words/karma, with 42+ words per karma point [1]). 2. Use too many commas. 3. Write "server" when I mean "serve". I think I add "r" to some other words ending in "e" too. I was thinking those would be something an AI might be good at catching and suggesting minimal fixes for. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46867167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46867167
- bsimpson 7mo agoThis is how I would use/expect AI to be used in HN. I would also like this clarified.
- altairprime 7mo agoAI-edited comments are not welcome here. If you’re not able to see and make those changes in your HN writing without AI editing, then you’ll either have to post on HN without those changes, or you’ll have to strive to apply them yourself.
- keeda 7mo agoCould we also discourage comments and comment-threads accusing an article of being AI-written? Half the threads these days have a comment that latches onto some LLM-ism in TFA, calls it out, and spawns a whole discussion which gets repetitive fast. I think this falls into the same category as "don't comment about the voting on comments." Personally, I try to look beyond the language, which admittedly can be grating, for some interesting ideas or insights. Given that people are already starting to sound like ChatGPT, probably through sheer osmosis, we will have no choice but to look past that anyway. Yes, it's annoying to read LLM-isms. It's also fine to downvote or ignore or grumble internally, and move on.
- spudlyo 7mo agoThat is indeed a problem. If one must complain about it, I think it would help to at least try elevate these type of tangential remarks beyond hurled accusations. A focus on the the specifics (where arguments are poorly made, banal observations are gussied up with flowery language, points are needlessly reiterated, etc) would at least make for slightly more interesting meta commentary.
- LZ_Khan 7mo agoAI comments are certainly bad for discourse on HN. But who's to be the judge of AI or human? Are you reading humanity's Jeff Dean or computerized Elon Musk? It's certainly a tricky situation to be in!
- r2vcap 7mo agoI don’t think there is a good algorithm (or guts) for differentiating between well-written comments and AI-generated comments.
- kentf 7mo agoI don't understand the need to use AI for this kind of convo. +1 to this.
- attractivechaos 7mo agoIn the age of AI, thinking becomes a privilege.
- NewsaHackO 7mo agoto get paid for*.AI has definitely reduced the influence pseudo-intellectuals have had on society. Now, you actually have to be smart enough to do something that isn't easily reproduced using LLMs.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- AIorNot 7mo agoAI does not have LONG context, Long Term Memories or LONG intentionality -its not aware and it can't remember the plot without being spoonfed the details each time from scratch. Its like an amnesic genius who once he already wrote a masterpiece and keeps cycling, and looses his train of thought after some fixed amount of time. This groundhog day effect is mitigated in some respects by code -we create key-value memories and agents and stores and countless ways to connect agents via MCP and platforms/frameworks like A2A and the like but until we solve that longer lived instance problem we won't be able to trust these systems without serious HITL (human oversight) I think we need models that update their own weights and we need some kind of awareness cycle rather than just a forward pass inference run with a bigger context window
- rexpop 7mo agoYou're all a bunch of tedious ignoramuses, your own fields of studying notwithstanding. I'm out here face-to-face with the Bullshit Asymmetry Principles. I'm not about to give up the only leverage I have! The fact of the matter is that there're not hours enough in the day to read, in realtime, to each and every one of you the reams they've written on why you're wrong. Do I have to establish a tag-team? The fact is that I've spent thousands upon thousands of hours painstakingly collating the perspectives that I'm now delivering to you—I am a river to my people. And it's only because they pass under the bridge of an LLM that they're objectionable? This is a bit like challenging your plumber for charging you over a minute's fix, when they've spent 20 years getting it down to that minute. The work's been done. You're paying for the outcome. Edit: All fresh off the top of my head, folks. Ah, that reminds me: I wouldn't feel compelled to do all this refutation if radical reactionary political extremism was properly moderated.
- sebringj 7mo agoI do too care about this but I say this in the reality in which we are. This reminds me of those signs "no shirt, no shoes, no service" except it's much worse, only sentient beings will actually care about it, while non-sentients will simply trample over the sign while token predicted laughter erupts from their token predicted sense of humor artifact. Elon said it well, there must be some disincentive to do this.
- dogemaster2025 7mo ago[flagged]
- Kye 7mo agoSometimes I collect my comments here to run through my draft writing skill to see how it might shake out as part of a blog post. Doing the opposite would be weird. I earned that karma. It's mine to burn making bad posts.
- AceJohnny2 7mo agoTranslation is a form of AI-edition. Language translation is the origin of (the current wave of) AI and its killer app. English is not the main language of the world, and translation opens us up to a huge pool of interesting thinkers. I'm a native speaker in a foreign language, but out of practice except of a weekly family call. I recently had to write a somewhat technical email to my family, and found it easier to write it in (my more practiced) english and have AI translate it, than write it in the target language myself. Of course, in my case I was able to verify that the output conveyed the meaning I intended, because I am fluent in the target language. As with the rise of GenAI, I've also noticed a rise of translated messages. It's usually hard to tell the difference, except by looking at the commenter's history (on other subreddits, impossible on HN). I understand the original frustration with GenAI comments and reactionary response. I'm sorry that we're excluding what could be a large pool of interesting people because we can't tell the difference.
- CivBase 7mo agoThe spirit of the rule is clearly about using AI to determine what you say and how you say it. Translation is not again the spirit of the rule and I doubt you'd get in trouble for using it.
- misiti3780 7mo agoi support this.
- tlogan 7mo agoBut we are missing the point here. It is not about whether the comment was written by AI, a native English speaker, English major, or ESL. What matters is an idea or an opinion. That is all what matters. This is similar to when people check someones post history and if they are pro Trump, they are immediately against their idea or opinion.
- nunez 7mo agoLove to see it. The next step is to run Pangram on every post and ban the offenders! Fight AI with AI! /s In all seriousness, this is one of the few places I trust for genuine conversations with other people. Forums are mostly dead, Reddit is bots-galore, and I'm not signing up for Facebook just for groups.
- nunez 7mo agoI hate how easy AI has made outsourcing thinking. You can literally type fragments of a thought into $CHAT_ASSISTANT and get a super polished response back that gets you 99% of the way there. It's almost like we, collectively, looked at the final scene of WALL-E and decided "Yes! Gimme that!"
- skeeter2020 7mo agoIs this true for you? How often do you get 99% of a complete, valuable thought? My experience is that it is quite rare. Occasionally high 90's for simple things of low value, 60's or less for things that approximate "thinking". At best it feels like a new search channel that amalgamates data better, and hasn't been thoroughly polluted by ads and SEO - yet.
- absynth 7mo agoPerhaps there needs to be ai.news... then let the AIs talk and interact there in a safe place.
- pkaodev 7mo agoI've got some reflecting to do because the first thing I did after reading the headline, before even clicking to the actual post, is look for ai comments. I miss pre 2010 internet. As soon as the advice animal memes started appearing on Facebook it was a quick decline.
- namegulf 7mo agoIt's time to change the name from Hacker News to Human News, let's go!
- nyc_data_geek1 7mo agoTake the slop to moltbook.
- adamgordonbell 7mo agoThis list of Do and Don'ts now reads like a bad Claude.md file to me. Don't insinuate that someone else must have broken that. It was you. Do run the linter Don't commit throw-away code Do write a test case Don't write a comment describing every single function Seriously, run the linter. And fix the issues. It is your fault.
- dinkywonks 7mo ago[dead]
- kashyapc 7mo agoI'm tickled pink to read this! I very much support this move. HN is one of the few internet forums I use. It'd be awful to see this riddled by bot spew. This rule will atleast partly stem the danger of HN getting turned into what dang calls a "scorched earth" situation.
- hbjkhgkytfkytv 7mo agoThe "no AI" rule finally being official feels like a necessary line in the sand. The real issue isn't just "slop" or bot-spam; it's the cost of entry. HN works because of the "proof of work" behind a good comment. If I’m spending five minutes reading your take on a kernel patch or a startup pivot, I’m doing it because I assume a human actually sat down and thought about it. When the cost of generating a response drops to zero, the value of the conversation follows it down. If the author didn't care enough to write it, why should I care enough to read it? The "AI-edited" part of the rule is the trickiest bit, though. We’re reaching a point where the line between a sophisticated spell-checker and a generative "tone polisher" is non-existent. My worry isn't that the mods will ban bots—they've been doing that for years—it's that we'll start seeing "witch hunts" against anyone who writes a bit too formally or whose English is a little too perfect. Ultimately, I’m glad it’s a rule. I don't come here to see what an LLM thinks; I can get that on my own localhost. I come here for the "graybeards" and the niche experts. If we lose the human friction, we lose the signal.
- illusive4080 7mo agoAt work, it’s becoming a real problem that people are using copilot to write their emails
- anthonySs 7mo agoYou're absolutely right! /s
- monksy 7mo ago"It's cute you think you can tell what's human and what's not. Honestly, the average HN comment is indistinguishable from a poorly written AI prompt anyway. This rule just lowers the bar for what passes as 'intellectual discourse.'" Sorry everyone, I couldn't help but to ask Gemma3-27B-it-vl-GLM-4.7-Uncensored-Heretic-Deep-Reasoning-i1-GGUF:q4_K_M to respond. Sorry dang. :) PS It followed it up with: > Disclaimer: "Slightly insulting" is subjective on HN. The mods there are sensitive. These Heretic models are fun.
- poopiokaka 7mo ago[dead]
- humannutsack 7mo ago[flagged]
- esperent 7mo agoDang - there's already a "showdead" toggle. Do you think we could also get a "showgreen" toggle to filter out this kind of noise? I'd probably find myself toggling it more often but I'd still appreciate it.
- humannutsack 7mo ago[dead]
- stevefan1999 7mo agoI'm sorry, but I would just have to just say no. ## Opposing the Ban on AI-Generated/Edited Comments on HN *The value of a comment should be judged by its content, not its origin.* Here are key arguments against this policy: - *Ideas matter more than authorship.* If a comment is insightful, well-reasoned, and contributes meaningfully to a discussion, dismissing it solely because AI assisted in its creation is a genetic fallacy — judging an argument by its source rather than its merit. - *We already accept tool-assisted thinking.* People routinely use calculators, search engines, spell-checkers, and reference materials before posting. AI assistance exists on a spectrum with these tools. Drawing a bright line specifically at "AI-edited" is arbitrary when someone could use a thesaurus, Grammarly, or have a friend proofread their comment without objection. - *It disadvantages non-native speakers.* Many HN users are brilliant engineers and thinkers who don't write fluently in English. AI editing can level the playing field, allowing their ideas to be judged on substance rather than prose quality. This policy inadvertently privileges native English speakers. - *It's effectively unenforceable.* There is no reliable way to distinguish a lightly AI-polished comment from a naturally well-written one. Unenforceable rules erode respect for the rules that are enforceable and important. - *The real problem is low-effort content, not the tool used.* What HN actually wants to prevent is shallow, generic, or spammy comments. A policy targeting quality directly (which HN already has) addresses the actual concern better than a blanket tool prohibition. - *Human intent still drives the conversation.* A person who uses AI to articulate their own idea more clearly is still participating in a human conversation — they're just communicating more effectively. The thought, the intent to engage, and the underlying perspective remain human. *In short:* This rule conflates the medium with the message and risks excluding valuable contributions in pursuit of an authenticity standard that is both philosophically fuzzy and practically unenforceable.
- jg0r3 7mo agothis one over here officer
- stevefan1999 7mo agoHah, you took the bait. What I could just do is obfuscate it a little bit and you can't tell whether it is AI-generated or not. If I just read that AI-generated snippet, and wrote a "human" version of it, would that still count as "AI-generated" The idea of that rule is that we don't want HN to be Moltbook, not that it actually wanted to ban AI-comments.
- crossroadsguy 7mo agoApple's proofread is essentially spell-check and punctuation until it isn't and even in a few-sentence-long para you'd see it has sneakily changed a lot and Apple being Apple you, the customer, obviously has no way to set it to "only fix spelling, punctuations and leave everything else including grammar as it is" and I've a feeling a lot of folks are at least using proofread or something on those lines. But then I really don't think browser's "spell check" ought to be kosher either if the content has to be the human's because those mistakes are also makes such text human and in some way unique. I don't think it's an easy line to draw but weird seeing just comments "targeted" here.
- jethronethro 7mo agoA Please (or even a Pls) would have been nice ... But I upvoted anyway.
- fHr 7mo agolmfao ycombinator that funds with millions AI companies, holy hypocrites haha
- sriramgonella 7mo ago[flagged]
- kshri24 7mo agoThank you! Please also make a separate Show HN for AI-generated/vibe-coded projects (specifically open-source projects) and queue any project that has a .claude/.codex (or whatever flavor of the month) into a slow queue automatically.
- Supermancho 7mo agoI use AI for the elements I feel are weak or unclear in the transcription. Sometimes I copy-paste a paragraph into ChatGPT or whatever, to ensure my (aging) thoughts are being communicated in a crystal clear manner. I cannot always point out why I think they are unclear or jumbled. I don't feel this is an imposition on others. I think it's the opposite. It enhances signal by reducing nitpicking, spelling/grammar errors that might muddle intent, and reminds me of proper sentence structure. Many of us are guilty of run-ons, fragments, overly large blocks of text[1] because it's closer to how people often converse, verbally. Posts on the internet are not casual conversation between humans. They are exchanges of ideas. [1] This is a classic example where I had to go back and edit it to ensure it was readable. As you do self-review with any commit ^^
- isodev 7mo agoYour “unclear or jumbled” but authentic comment is always better than “feels like chewing sand”, normalised and calibrated LLM outs
- Springtime 7mo agoI get the sense the point of the HN rule is to preserve unique human expression, regardless of how someone's communication skills are at a given point. Like, I periodically see articles on HN which have stale turns of phrase and signs of poor LLM use (which then becomes distracting while reading) and then the author sometimes mentioning in the HN comments they used an LLM to 'help' with their post based on some list of points they wanted to communicate. Yet when it's relied on too heavily like that it smothers the author's own voice. If an opinion/idea is being communicated in the voice of another then something unique to that user has been lost. Like if I were to have a germ of an premise and told someone else about it and I found their thoughts clearer and how they expressed it and then copied how they'd expressed it then I think I'd be at least crediting them. Otherwise our own growth with self-editing and clarity will just atrophy and the internet will be a soup of homogenized ways of expressing things.
- kindkang2024 7mo ago> Sometimes I copy-paste a paragraph into ChatGPT or whatever, to ensure my (aging) thoughts are being communicated in a crystal clear manner. I Same here. And sometimes, I got downvoted and treated as an LLM — in the name of valuing the human. To me, what matters is the will behind the words. Ideas and words themselves are cheap (this becomes clearer every day in the AI age) — they're almost nothing until they're executed and actually help someone. > "The Dao can be told, but what is told is not the eternal Dao. The Name can be named, but what is named is not the true Name." — Laozi, Dao De Jing Like code we write — it's dead text on a screen until it's running. And what we really care about is the running effect — and that is exactly the reason, the will, behind why we write the code in the first place.
- rightmerit 7mo ago[dead]
- flammafex 7mo agoSo is this the AI bubble popping? I expect Y Combinator to cease and revoke all funding of all companies that leverage LLM technologies that interact with humans. I wonder if there's an AI-hate movement in China.
- joquarky 7mo agoChina doesn't have the same copyright culture underlying most of the hate in the US, so I would be curious if the genAI haters within Chinese culture have more pragmatic reasons to dislike it.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- 5o1ecist 7mo ago[dead]
- ChaitanyaSai 7mo agoAI has made it easier for me not to worry about how pretty or polished my comments are. What used to be a sign you cared has now been devalued nearly completely by AI. This is freeing and allows me to think about the substance. I still do read it, but don't care too much about the typos. It's now a a proud badge for artisanal thinking!
- hsbauauvhabzb 7mo agoThis is clearly an AI written comment and is poor form.
- tlogan 7mo agoAnd? Do you agree with the point or the idea the poster said? Or not? I remember that in the early days of HN there were people who would downvote comments just because they had grammar mistakes, without even trying to understand the idea or what the poster was trying to say. I guess this thread looks like a bunch of grammar Nazis crying because they have lost their ammunition :)
- hsbauauvhabzb 7mo agoYou’re literally trying to justify using AI against the site creators wishes in a thread about not using AI. AI will destroy HN and any hope of a similar site ever existing in the future. If you really want low quality slop posting, please go to Reddit and let the rest of us cling on for the little time HN has left.
- ChaitanyaSai 6mo agoHuh wow just noticing it. That was definitely my own writing. Kinda sad I failed the captcha
- ninjagoo 7mo agoLot of folks on here saying they only want to converse with other humans, for various reasons. But here's the funny thing. I'm pretty sure the frontier models are now smarter than I am, more eloquent, and definitely more knowledgeable, especially the paid versions with built-in search/research capability. I'm also fairly certain that the number of original thoughts in a given discourse on the Internet is fairly small, I know that's certainly the case for me. So whither humans now? If I'm looking for human engagement, forums make sense. But for an informed discussion, I'm less certain that it's wise to be exclusionary. There is a case to be made that lower quality comments should be hidden or higher quality comments should be surfaced, but that's true regardless of the source, innit?
- brailsafe 7mo agoWould you hang out with a friend over coffee or something who, rather than conversing with you, recorded your side of the conversation directly into an LLM and then played you back the result? Seems like a good way to kill a relationship.
- ninjagoo 7mo agoA significant part of my friends and family conversations already involve referencing LLMs for scoping, explanations, deeper dives, insights etc. And it's not just me, they use LLMs more than I do. It helps move discussions along. Where before conversation would get bogged down in disputes, now we cover more ground. If it helps, my friends and family tend to have at least a master's, and the majority have PhDs. > Would you hang out with a friend over coffee or something who, rather than conversing with you, recorded your side of the conversation directly into an LLM and then played you back the result? I think the difference is that you're imagining the LLM replaces the conversationalist, but as I said above, my lived experience is that the LLM provides grounding to the discussion, effectively having replaced internet search as a better, faster, broader, smarter library. It doesn't kill the conversation, it makes it better.
- brailsafe 7mo ago> If it helps, my friends and family tend to have at least a master's, and the majority have PhDs. Those aren't super rare these days, I don't know why arbitrary credentials would matter for this purpose, but incidentally, the notion that they would matter in conversation at all kind of speaks to the type of engagement you might be having with them, which may indeed be different than what I care about. Personally I don't find people all that engaging the more inclined they are to go looking up answers, to me it represents a certain amount of discomfort with uncertainty, ego, that are necessary for a fun conversation. If someone has an answer because of their experience, great, otherwise it's ok to not know in the moment and continue on. In one case, I had a friendship kind of fizzle out because we'd be hanging and I'd express some curiosity that I'd hope he'd build on with his own experience or his own sense of wonder, but because he only cared about authoritative facts, he'd google the answer and get frustrated that I only cared about his opinion on what the answer might be. The actual fact was incidental, and this conflict regularly led to impasse where I'd clarify I don't care what the internet says etc.. and I'm fine with that because he wasn't really interested in thought exercises. A concrete hypothetical mundane example might be posing "How do you think the Iran war might impact gas prices here?" and they'd just look up the history and trends, and then kind of stop there. Dull, I want a human response, speculate and build on it, let yourself be wrong.
- Madmallard 7mo agoWhat's strange about this is that tons of the upvoted posts on the front-page are LLM generated text So....?
- travisgriggs 7mo agoTIL: definition fulminate fulminated, fulminating to explode with a loud noise; detonate. to issue denunciations or the like (usually followed byagainst ). (Because “don’t fulminate” is the rule that follows the referenced one :) )
- caditinpiscinam 7mo agoSame. I vaguely remembered "fulmen" from Latin class but I didn't know there was a derived English word. > from Latin fulminatus, past participle of fulminare "hurl lightning, lighten," figuratively "to thunder," from fulmen (genitive fulminis) "lightning flash," -- from etymonline.com
- caditinpiscinam 7mo agoWe've all heard the phrase "the sum of all human knowledge". I've been feeling more and more that generative AI represents the average of all human knowledge. Which has its place. But a future in which all thought and creativity is averaged away is a bleak one. It's the heat death of thought.
- ModernMech 7mo agoThe soft gaussian blur of all human knowledge.
- oblio 7mo ago> I've been feeling more and more that generative AI represents the average of all human knowledge. It's literally what it is. Fairly sure that mathematically it's a fancier regression/prediction so it's a form of average.
- ninjagoo 7mo ago> I've been feeling more and more that generative AI represents the average of all human knowledge. Have you tried the paid versions of frontier models? They certainly do not feel like they spew the average of all human knowledge. It's not uncommon for them to find and interpret the cutting edge of papers in any of the domains that I've asked them questions about.
- fuzzer371 7mo agoYup. And they all sound like slop. Read the papers, comprehend the papers, don't make someone else's computer do it for you.
- charlie0 7mo agoThat comment is nice, but virtually meaningless as there's no way to enforce it, even if there were mods.
- happytoexplain 7mo agoUnenforceable guidelines are not meaningless unless humans are all without care, in which case why would you even want to be talking to them in the first place.
- huflungdung 7mo ago[dead]
- wolfcola 7mo agolol, lmao
- lol8675309 7mo agoLol
- uni_baconcat 7mo agoFor quite a while, I like use LLM to refine and fix my grammar issue, but my colleagues and professors reminds me that it was way too obvious. They said they can tolerate some mistakes in my words, but no tolerance for AI generated content.
- dang 7mo agoThanks for putting this so nicely! We'd much rather hear you in your own voice, and the cost of a few mistakes is far less than the cost of losing that. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%22own%20voice%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- drittich 7mo agoVoice is everything. Don't relinquish the best part of yourself.
- Freedom2 7mo agoFor hackers, wouldn't the best part of ourselves be our technical excellence?
- Nevermark 7mo agoHave you tried that line in a bar? More to the point, Hacker News is much more interesting for encouraging idiosyncratic (i.e. original, diverse, nuanced views of specific) human viewpoints, not just being raw technical information. Model rewrites remove much of specific human dimension.
- lmz 7mo ago> Model rewrites remove much of specific human dimension Great. Isn't that part of being anonymous if one so desires? This would have decent potential to avoid stylometry deanonymization, no?
- jb-wells 7mo ago... --- ... %/% %_% ^+?
- reducesuffering 7mo agoThis being 3 years late is indicative of how far HN is falling behind the curve. Do not expect much convo here around software technology to be skating towards the puck. It is increasingly reactive and lagging the frontier, which is a shame from its former self.
- sholladay 7mo agoI assume that the inclusion of some AI generated content is ok, such as when discussing the performance of different models?
- agrajag 7mo agoI’m sure it would be fine if it was quoted, but it seems obvious the policy is to not represent AI generated content as human
- sam345 7mo agoGood addition but to be fair HN guidelines have become so quaint particularly as they are now rarely enforced or even acknowledged. E.g. "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. " And " Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. " These are violated every day without consequence.
- altairprime 7mo agoHow often do you report the violations you see every day to the mods? (The ‘flag’ button is not yet suitable for that purpose.)
- MagicMoonlight 7mo agoWe need blade runners to identify the replicants among us and remove them.
- ninjagoo 7mo agoConclusion: HN does not, for one, welcome their new AI overlords :)
- grappler 7mo agoSince we now face a threat of large-scale de-anonymization, a reasonable countermeasure might be using AI to make one's writing style less personally identifying, in order to try and retain some pseudonymity. https://simonlermen.substack.com/p/large-scale-online-deanonymization https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47139716
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- a1371 7mo agoMy question is, and this is genuinely a question: Do you think YC-backed companies would have respected this guideline if it was posted on some other website they wanted to operate in?
- teruakohatu 7mo ago> Do you think YC-backed companies would have respected this guideline if it was posted on some other website they wanted to operate in? That is a false equivalence. What a YC-backed company does is not relevant to how a YC-owned web forum operates.
- ludicrousdispla 7mo agoThey're asking a question, not making an equivalence. And I'll add that YC founders/companies do have some specific advantages on this forum, so it's worth knowing if they are held to any standard.
- Nevermark 7mo agoThis is a wonderful rule. It also points out the need for AI writing tools that very strictly just: 1. Point out misspellings and typos. 2. Point our grammar mistakes, if they confuse the point. 3. Point out weaknesses of argument, without injecting their own reasoning. I.e. help "prompt" humans to improve their writing, without doing the improvement for them. In fact, I would like a reliable version of that approach for many types of tasks where my creativity or thought processes are the point, and quality-control feedback (but not assistance), is helpful. This is a mode where models could push humans to work harder, think deeper, without enabling us to slack off.
- cobbzilla 7mo agoI don’t want to read AI slop, but how do you feel about translations? I don’t mind when non-native speakers use it to express themselves, especially if disclaimed (but I give a pass even if not). Does it bother you?
- Nevermark 7mo agoI think it makes perfect sense. But that a site might still want to discourage it, to avoid general degradation. It is a tradeoff. If someone can write in the target language, just not well, a model could be asked to point out problems for the writer to fix. Rewrite a difficult sentence.
- cobbzilla 7mo agoI suppose for me, it is the difference between a true “translation“ and having an LLM reinterpret intent and state “its” words. Ideally, I want the speaker’s words translated “verbatim” to English, to the extent possible.
- thezipcreator 7mo agoWe've had machine translation for a while and I don't think anybody particularly thinks of it as a bad thing? Writing something and then having a machine directly translate it (possibly imperfectly) is a lot different than a machine writing the thing. Personally I would like people to try learning other languages more (it's hard but rewarding) but you can't learn every language ever, and it is really hard to learn a language to fluency.
- sschueller 7mo agoI have the feeling my gramatical errors from being ESL appear to be "tolerated" a lot more than a few years ago. By that I mean that it doesn't get called out as much as it used to be.
- geobuk-dosa 7mo agoI've used LLM to correct my english, but Its better to use English at my level.
- greggsy 7mo agoIt’s almost certain that this exact thread is currently being used to train comment bots.
- surume 7mo agoAI assistance does not eliminate human authorship. A comment may be drafted or refined with tools but still reflect the user’s own ideas and judgment. Prohibiting any AI assistance would be difficult to enforce and would likely exclude normal writing aids that many people already use. The more relevant standard is whether the commenter stands behind the content and participates in the discussion.
- gos9 7mo agoHalf of this thread is AI assisted writing. lol.
- system2 7mo agoFor once I am proud of my aggressive, unfiltered human comments.
- shevy-java 7mo agoI've seen AI-generated comments be used quite a lot, even by real people. When asked why they did so, they could not explain it, or claimed "to reduce spelling mistakes". Which makes no sense; real people make spelling mistakes and typos all the time. Why would that warrant the use of AI? To me it seems as if some people are just mega-lazy, so they use AI; and for testing, too. When they do so, though, they waste the time of other humans, as these other humans suddenly have to "interact" with AI, without this being announced. It is a form of cheating, IMO. On youtube you now find many fake-videos created by AI, without announcement - I don't watch these as I consider it cheating too, when not labeled as such. Admittedly it is getting very hard to distinguish what is real and what is fake. There are some ways to find out, but it is getting really hard to distinguish accurately. Sometimes you see e. g. 10 funny animal videos and only 2 are fake-AI, so these people combine cheating with non-cheating. Very annoying - it degrades youtube, which isn't so bad actually since that is owned by evil Google.
- aicoldtrail 7mo agoI don't think I'm going to spend the time to paraphrase my worthwhile AI-applied work for such hypocritical rules. So develop and fund and use AI but manually paraphrase things and don't cite AI? It is best to cite a source and/or a method. Do you think it is better to paraphrase and not cite AI? I don't recall encountering posts on HN that I've wanted to flag as AI.
- aicoldtrail 7mo ago> It is best to cite a source and/or a method Have you considered this? If people do not cite their sources or methods when they use AI, then we will not know where error was introduced by paraphrasing AI.
- westurner 7mo agoEveryone that uses a search engine (with or without an "AI mode") is using AI and LLMs and software built and tested with AI. If they say "no" to "did you use AI", they're probably not correct and/or lying. But you may not cite or quote or link to AI generated work? > If people do not cite their sources or methods when they use AI, then we will not know where error was introduced by paraphrasing AI.
- aicoldtrail 7mo agoI think that you have rallied hate for AI to falsely justify need for censorship. If HN takes a "hate and hunt" AI stance, I will not contribute to HN.
- aicoldtrail 7mo agoHere are alternate possible rules for this; though I don't agree that making such distinction for every post is called for: 1. No AI comments without a human in the loop. 2. Please cite. Please cite when you use AI so that others can trace the errors and evaluate the premises of the argument. An argument has premises and a logical form. We should expect the frequency of AI errors like hallucinations to decrease and accuracy to increase over time. You should always consider peer review and getting another opinion regardless of whether AI or ML were used. Do you need to cite AI? If scientific reproducibility is necessary or important for your application, You should also cite search queries, search results at that time, the name and version and software package hash of each software tool, the configuration parameters for each software tool, the URL and hash of the data, and whether you used spell check or autocorrect or an AI grammar service. If you use an (AI) grammar service, you should disclose the model name and version, model hash or Merkle hash, and the model parameters. But most people don't even cite URLs here; it's just people making unsupported arguments.
- yavor-atanasov 7mo agoThis thread made me think of education (as in schools). To paraphrase: “Don’t post generated/AI-edited assignments. School is for conversation between humans” AI can be a great tool for learning, but also can pollute or completely hijack the medium for human interaction and learning. Having HN flooded with AI generated content will be sad as I like reading it, but losing that same fight at schools will be detrimental.
- chid 7mo agoI haven't heard of any recent discussion on the impact of AI on schooling. I agree with you entirely but curious to read any recent thinking on this.
- eptcyka 7mo agoIt is horrendous - it seems that oral verification is required to test pupils skills - this does not scale. People not using LLMs to finish assignments are getting penalized by lower grades, people using llms to finish assignmnets learn nothing.
- lucumo 7mo agoWhy would oral verification be needed? Hand-written answers on paper in a proctored classroom should still work fine. That was the way most verification worked when I was in school, and still is the most used verification method used currently around me. Homework assignments are harder, but those were always a bit difficult for teachers. It's not like cheating was invented by Gen Z...
- yavor-atanasov 7mo agoGen Z definitely didn’t invent cheating, but LLMs brought qualitative difference and scale. That changes the properties of the system. During my university most courses had a good mixture of take-home assignments/projects and in-class exams. Yes, people could always cheat either through plagiarism (usually easily caught) or at the extreme by getting someone else to do the work (which I have never personally seen). Anecdotal data around me shows: * outright paper/assignment generation via LLM * using chatGPT as a “professor” proofreading and polishing course work before submission (arguably good use but depends on the personal effort) * avoiding reading by asking chatGPT for summaries * using chatGPT to help explain various concepts (this is a good example of using LLMs as a source for learning…accepting that occasionally they can lie) In a small classroom where a good teacher-student interaction happens, I guess it’s easier to catch people cheating. But some universities (maybe most) have massive classes where a professor may never have an actual conversation with some students. That context makes cheating harder to detect. I accept my outlook on this may be a bit bleaker (hopefully), but saying it’s business as usual is at the other extreme.
- txrx0000 7mo agoThis seems fine as a short-term solution, but human-only is no good as a long-term rule. The AIs will soon surpass human capability. Even in the present, I think some AI comments are already decent quality. It's just most of them aren't high quality yet. And I'm worried banning AIs altogether will eventually lead to some form of prove-you-are-human verification to use the site, which will reduce anonymity. Even something seemingly benign like verifying email would mean many unverified accounts like my own will disappear. And there is a legitimate use for LLM rewrite to counter identification by stylometry, so rewrite shouldn't be banned. I think we'll have to allow the AI stuff at some point, and make a system that incentivizes quality posts regardless of where they come from or how they're written.
- eptcyka 7mo agoI don’t care to read a comment that nobody put their time in.
- altmanaltman 7mo ago"prove you are human verification" as in something like Sam Altman-backed World and The Orb [1]? Or maybe even the bead [2] (backed by me) 1: https://world.org/orb https://world.org/orb 2: https://thebead.pixlw.com/ https://thebead.pixlw.com/
- Paracompact 7mo ago> The AIs will soon surpass human capability. The rule can be revised later. > I'm worried banning AIs altogether will eventually lead to some form of prove-you-are-human verification to use the site, which will reduce anonymity. Of all the sites on the Web to worry about this happening, HN is low risk. Oppose that change if it comes, not this one. > And there is a legitimate use for LLM rewrite to counter identification by stylometry Source for comment-level stylometry ever actually being someone's downfall, despite availing themselves to every other much more standard defense measure? Regardless, if your experimental means of deanonymizing yourself comes at the expense of the site's quality, it is probably not welcome.
- fudfomo 7mo agoHighly appreciate this! It's what makes the difference: humans are not perfect which is why evolution works quite well.
- mulhoon 7mo agoAs a type nerd, I was very happy with Grammarly swapping my dashes to em dashes. But now everyone associates em dashes with AI, I can no longer enjoy that luxury.
- teiferer 7mo agoI wonder how many people change how they express themselves just to sound less like AI.
- wubbfindel 7mo agoI've been a regular users of the em dash for years before it became associated with AI output — and I refuse to let that change me!
- GrinningFool 7mo agoI've always used the double-hyphen for m-dash -- it's a carry-over from learning to touch-type on a typewriter. Hopefully that's enough of a distinction...
- fernandotakai 7mo agoi do the same thing, but not for typewriter, but because back in my leopard/snow leopard days, i setup -- to transform into —. the thing is, i never setup it again but i kept typing --.
- Brajeshwar 7mo agoObsidian has a Community plugin called “Smart Typography”[1] which was updated 4 years ago. That is one of my very few default plugins. I want my quotes curly, em-dashes corrected, and arrows shown as arrows. These are also my defined rules in Grammarly (might be moving to LanguageTool). 1. https://github.com/mgmeyers/obsidian-smart-typography https://github.com/mgmeyers/obsidian-smart-typography
- Havoc 7mo agoThat’s fine. I’m not really bothered by this either way in hn context Only really irritated by the ultra low effort “here is a raw copy paste of what my LLM said on this topic” comments. idk how people think that’s helpful or desired
- larodi 7mo agoin reality, it is perhaps indistinguishable. like - if I take this whole page of comments, feed it into... say Opus latest 1M, and tell it "have my text tweaked in a way to please these guys' apparent aesthetically preferences", or even "make my writing sound human in the sense all these guys do", then I cannot see how anyone would recognize it. unless tis signed before uploading, like this is even enforceable?
- zmef 7mo agoThis policy is incredibly misguided, ableist, neo‑Luddite, technophobic hogwash. Technologically mediated communication has been with us almost as long as communication itself. We already accept writing, printing, telegraphy, phones, keyboards, spellcheckers, compilers, search engines, and autocomplete as legitimate augmentations of human thought. Drawing the line at this particular class of tools feels arbitrary and, frankly, rooted more in fear than in principle. I get it: humans are instinctively protectionist. A tool that operates in the same “space” as what we think makes us special—our intelligence, our language—feels threatening. It looks like competition rather than amplification. But this is just the next step in the same trajectory. Like written language, printing, and telecommunications, generative models are tools that, on the whole, will raise our collective intelligence by reducing the cost of expressing, translating, and recombining ideas. They don’t replace human judgment, curiosity, or responsibility; they change the interface. Generative AI is, in a sense, just very advanced cave painting: humans using whatever is at hand to make marks that carry meaning across time and space. Refusing to engage with those marks because the paint got better doesn’t make the communication more “authentic”; it just makes the medium poorer.
- superultra 7mo agoI think you’re missing the point and approaching this with a myopically binary perspective. Just because you consider AI an interface in line with, perhaps, a paintbrush, typewriter, or spell checker, doesn’t mean it automatically is. It may even be true for you, and not for others. That’s the myopic part. The binary part is that simply because you see it as an interface, it doesn’t have effects that are different than the interface of a brush. You wouldn’t get very far arguing with a judge that 80mph over the speed limit is exactly the same as 5mph over the speed limit. Or, where would you draw the line. Is hiring someone to write your hacker news comments still your comment? Or what about spam bots? Are they not also an “interface?” Is banning spam bots outrightly also “ableist” by you? But also, we have plenty of both media philosophical musing and evidence based data that shows that while mediums may not BE the message, they absolutely do affect the message. In this case HN is simply saying that the process of humans generating words that we type onto a screen is the valuable part of communicating that we want to maintain. And that using AI is a bridge too far in losing the effort and output from that process.
- p0w3n3d 7mo agoIt's quite funny how native speakers can recognise the AI voice writing or speaking their tongue. As a Polish man I am repulsed when I hear AI generated Polish voice in a commercial, but can't see problems in AI generated English speech
- AyanamiKaine 7mo agoMhh while many argue they can recognise the AI in writing. I dont think Humans actually can judge if something is done by ai or not. Many times I saw people 100% believing that an artist created an AI artwork only for that artist to be bullied because they didnt admit it. Only for them to showing undeniable prove that they actually did create their art themselves. For someone to be allowed to judge another. He should be doing a test where he can identify AI comments first with high accuracy. It would be a pain to see real human comments and ideas to be hidden or removed by a mob.
- water9 7mo agoHN is leftist echo chamber and down view points they disagree with. Fuck Dang, can’t wait to see this website go to AI slop.
- water9 7mo ago[flagged]
- spzzz 7mo agoMe not native speeker. AI help me too get my point front much more cleanly. It hard not look like dummy. Im of course exaggerating, but it is so easy just to run the text through an AI to make it sound "better" without changing what im trying to express. --- I’m not a native speaker, so AI helps me get my point across more clearly. It’s hard not to come across like a dummy otherwise. Of course I’m exaggerating, but it’s really easy to run the text through AI to make it sound better without changing what I’m trying to say.
- wiether 7mo agoAs a non native speaker, seeing how many natives keep making the "then/than" mistake, I'm comfortable looking dumb. I only use AI on critical communications, to make sure that the meaning of my message is the right one. Otherwise I'm fine making mistakes and I encourage people to correct me.
- GrinningFool 7mo agoThe removal of the quotes around "better" discards an entire layer of meaning. It also loses the voice that was present in the 'before' version. Typos/misuses and all. More tangibly, an entire layer of meaning was dropped when it removed the quotes around 'better'.
- spzzz 7mo agoI see your point, and I agree the result can feel impersonal and stiff. But, I'd say the overall improvement is more important than one possible deterioration. Quotes are easy to put back if I'd think it was important (it was not in this case) Please reply in Swedish only. Remember to not use any tool to translate to avoid subtle layers of meaning being removed. It's easy! /Native speaker ;)
- yunseo47 7mo agoWhether it’s code, general text, or university assignments, the core issue is taking responsibility for one's own work. While I share the concerns raised in this thread, I believe the focus on 'LLM usage' is a bit of a red herring. The fundamental principle of ownership hasn't changed with the advent of LLMs; the tool itself isn't the issue, but rather the abdication of responsibility by the author. For instance, if a non-native speaker translates their own writing using machine translation or an AI, is that problematic—provided they personally review and vet the content before posting? I don't think the people calling out AI use on this board are taking issue with that. Ultimately, it’s not about the method; it’s about the author's attitude. The reason LLMs are so disruptive now is that while "shitposts" used to be obvious, we're now seeing "plausible" low-effort content generated without any human oversight. Irresponsible people have always been around, but LLMs have given them the tools to scale that irresponsibility to an unprecedented level.
- yunseo47 7mo agoI think a human-like piece with minor mistakes resonates more emotionally than a perfectly written piece that looks like it was written by AI. However, since there seems to be a grammar debate going on here, I'd like to add: Is it a bad thing for non-native speakers to use AI to correct grammar or awkward expressions? I think it definitely has positive aspects in terms of lowering language barriers.
- ethbr1 7mo ago> the tool itself isn't the issue, but rather the abdication of responsibility by the author The biggest current social problem with AI content is our collective lack of transparency into how much human responsibility was taken. Give a <100% reliable/accurate AI tool, the same post/code may have had {every line vetted by a human} or {no lines vetted by a human}... and readers have no way of telling which it is! Because even if no edits needed to be made, the former carries a lot more signal than the latter, because it reduces risk of AI slop and therefore makes the content more valuable. At the same time, it also costs more time to produce, so in any competitive marketplace (YouTube, paid comments, startup code, etc.) the unvetted AI content will dominate.
- alansaber 7mo agoReddit is absolutely infested with AI generated comments. Good to see a site taking a stance against. That being said my main gripe in HN wasn't comments, it's the volume of shitty AI generated submissions.
- 9rx 7mo ago> HN is for conversation between humans. What kind of human has an orange head and beige body with text written all over? An HN conversation is clearly with a computer program. Anthropomorphizing it is certainly an interesting take, but one that is bound to lead to misinterpretations and misunderstandings. The medium is the message. To avoid problems it is best to not play pretend.
- midnight_eclair 7mo agollm-generated is for corporate mail llm-assisted for when i care about precision and accuracy brain-generated for when i feel safe to make mistakes
- JumpingVPN2027 7mo ago[flagged]
- lionkor 7mo agoIf you feel the need to fix/edit your own comments with AI, keep in mind that this is not necessary at all. If someone can't figure out what you're saying, and don't care to try, they can run their LLM over it and have it summarize it with emojis, bullet points, and slightly changed content. You dont need to do that for all of us.
- hrmtst93837 7mo ago[flagged]
- layer8 7mo agoThey wouldn’t know what is lost in translation. Automatic translation is often far from perfect, even more so when translating single comments without context. It’s a crutch when nothing else is available, but it’s not a good way to have a conversation.
- hrmtst93837 7mo ago[flagged]
- lionkor 7mo agoDeepl and other services exist, and they at least aren't slop cannons
- speefers 7mo ago[dead]
- Cthulhu_ 7mo ago> If someone can't figure out what you're saying, and don't care to try, This puts the onus of being comprehensible to the reader, which isn't fair I think. If you can't get your point across in a way that is comprehensible, maybe don't post.
- hollowturtle 7mo ago> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling Reading the site in past 2 years left me with the feeling that HN has been injected by subtle to catch AI marketing campaigns. It's exausting and calling out astroturfers imo is not that bad
- autodate 7mo ago[dead]
- stalfie 7mo agoWithout a technical means to enforce this, the only result of this policy will be a culture of paranoia and a lot of false positives.
- bayindirh 7mo agoI'll kindly disagree, even me, as someone who doesn't use any "Chat" tools from big three, can feel if something is AI generated. We're slowly being educated into detecting it. This is why human brain is awesome. Every model, every computer generation has a subtle signature, and we (as in humans) can understand it. Moreover, here is a very human-enforced place. Many of us already doesn't like to be answered by a bot here, so community is also a deterrent. Plus, having an official guideline will multiply that deterrent. Not everything is lost. Have some faith in your fellow humans.
- ontouchstart 7mo agoI finished reading the thin book "Systemantics" by John Gall yesterday (thanks @dang). I realized that the problem of AI generated/edited content flooding everywhere around us is a symptom of something wrong with the System. It might have something to do with sensory deprivation. Here is a quote from the book caught my attention because of the word "hallucination": > As we all know, sensory deprivation tends to produce hallucinations. > FUNCTIONARY’S FAULT: A complex set of malfunctions induced in a Systems-person by the System itself, and primarily attributable to sensory deprivation. (As I typed the text above on my iPhone, I was fighting auto completion because AI was trying to “correct” the voice of John Gall and mine to conform the patterns in its training data. Every new character is a fight against Gradient Descend.) All you need is attention but the cost of attention is getting higher and higher when there is little worth our attention. It takes a lot of efforts to be human.
- dathinab 7mo agoWhat is meant with AI-edited?? AI can do a grate job for grammar, spell and formulation checking/fixing without changing any content. I.e. just adding as a fancy version of extended spell checking. While I do currently not use it like that there shouldn't be any reason to ban it. And tbh. given some recent comments I have been really wondering if I should use it, because either there are quite a bunch of people with lacking reading comprehension or quite a bunch of people with prejudice against people struggling with English spelling and grammar. Either way using AI as extended spell checker does would help with getting the message through to both groups as - it helps with spelling, grammar in ways where traditional spell checker fail hard - it tends to recommend very easy to read sentence structure and information density
- gosub100 7mo agoIt doesn't help anyone. The user just depends on it to fix their English. And it makes a monoculture where every ESL user sounds exactly the same.
- dathinab 7mo agoexcept you can nudge LLMs to use different stiles more similar to your writing they aren't good at it but viable and more important this is about LLMs fixing grammar, spelling and pointing out bad formulations with change recommendations. This is not about giving them pullet points and telling them to write text for you.
- layer8 7mo ago> without changing any content It absolutely will change content if you ask it to reformulate or fix language style.
- dathinab 7mo agothere is tools out there which can use in ways where it normally won't change the content. And it's not that you are blindly posting the output of it. It's also about fixing grammar, spelling, formulation issues. It's not about giving it pullet points and it writing the text for you.
- deleted 7mo ago[deleted]
- wellpast 7mo agoOne way to potentially discourage or curb AI-edited/written is integrate AI into HN so that your submissions get recommendations based on HN post guidelines such as “consider tone”, “substance” etc. Then less motivation to jump out to external LLM to even get comments on your content which can temptingly lead to editing/generation.
- palmotea 7mo ago> Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans. Where's the curiosity about this world-changing technology? As all the CTOs have recently said: AI use not an option and it must change everything we do. /s
- redbell 7mo agoFirst of all, I suggest that moderators add this to the comments' section in the linked guidelines. It should clearly states that pasting AI-generated replies is discouraged and does not fit within the community spirit. Second, I have to confess that I did this sin a couple of times now, but I came to realize that this is neither good for me nor for the HN community. Although I used AI just for rephrasing, I decided to not do this ever and I'd rather write my own words with mistakes than post generated words based on my thoughts. It happened for me once and it strikes me like a nuke and I felt truly embarrassed. A couple of months I wrote that comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42264786 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42264786) then I asked ChatGPT to rephrase it and then mistakenly, pasted both comments, the original above and the generate one below and I hit submit. Shortly after, a user comes, read my comment and replied with that embarrassing reply and honestly, I deserve it. From that moment I realized how things can got messed up quickly when you rely heavily on that AI.
- forgetfreeman 7mo agoThere's an element of cognitive dissonance to the community's response to AI that I find fascinating. Nearly unanimous rejection of AI-generated content while simultaneously breathlessly touting AI tooling in significantly more sensitive (and lets face it riskier) environments like the company codebase.
- plewd 7mo agoI think people care less about risk and more about human creativity & genuinity. Personally, I get disgusted when I see AI encroaching into artistic fields because I hope new technologies will be used to replace our monotonous work, not take away from authentic discussion/work.
- forgetfreeman 7mo agoThis and other social media are hardly platforms for authentic discussion, and as far as artistic fields go AI is perfectly incapable of encroachment provided you accept Stephenson's definition of what makes "art": "Hard art demanded commitment from the artist. It could only be done once, and if you screwed it up, you had to live with the consequences." - Neil Stephenson, Diamond Age I feel like what you're arguing for here is "it's fine as long as it's convenient for me".
- OhNoNotAgain_99 7mo ago[dead]
- craigmccart 7mo ago[dead]
- randomNumber7 7mo agoThe problem is that there is now way to distinguish AI generated content from s.th. a human has written.
- Tepix 7mo agoYou're absolutely right! It's not just the uncertainty — it's cruelty towards AI.
- randomNumber7 7mo agoSorry but I don't understand what you want to tell me with this.
- kittikitti 7mo agoAn important distinction I feel is often left out of the conversation of regulating AI generated content are the psychological effects of negative or positive consequences or reinforcement. I think we are overwhelmingly utilizing negative reinforcement for AI generated content; where there are consequences for engaging in this behavior. On the other hand, positive reinforcement would encourage authenticity and greater human content. The reality of the situation is that AI generated content won't go away and it's become a game of who can hide their artificial content the best. Thus, I believe that positive reinforcement is the solution. I think we must instead encourage human created content instead of policing AI generation. There are so many rules to follow already that by the time I create the content, I've gone through enough if/then logic that it feels like AI anyway.
- bennydog224 7mo agoI personally enjoy the errors and oddities in syntax and dialect which tell me something definitively is > NOT written by AI and help me understand the author better in such an anonymous space. The second is gonna be a lot harder to enforce, as we soon (and probably already) don't know who we're talking to on the internet - a real person or someone's agent? Will calling spaces "human only" later be seen as discriminatory by agents? How will we actually enforce "human only" spaces? Will websites like HN start to provide an "agent only" discussion forum or filter in addition to the "human only" sections?
- zby 7mo agoI just found the xkcd that expresses my opinion on this: https://xkcd.com/810/ https://xkcd.com/810/ I am surprised that apparently I am in a minority here.
- insin 7mo agoAm I imagining things, or has HN become even more noticeably overrun with green usernames spewing LLM-generated comments since this guideline was added? Spiteclaws?
- Freebytes 7mo agoUsing AI to write content is seen so harshly because it violates the previously held social contract that it takes more effort to write messages than to read messages. If a person goes through the trouble of thinking out and writing an argument or message, then reading is a sufficient donation of time. However, with the recent chat based AI models, this agreement has been turned around. It is now easier to get a written message than to read it. Reading it now takes more effort. If a person is not going to take the time to express messages based on their own thoughts, then they do not have sufficient respect for the reader, and their comments can be dismissed for that reason.
- mlhpdx 7mo agoWhere does the line fall? I can use an LLM to help form new and novel thoughts into prose, right? To structure and present it in conventional language rather than stream of thought. Is that disrespectful? It doesn't feel so.
- davorak 7mo ago> Where does the line fall? For now I would argue when ai edits for you instead of helping you edit. Take a look at the examples that Dang posted if you have not yet: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47342616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47342616 The first 5 I looked at were pretty egregious and not subtle.
- Jeffrin-dev 7mo ago[flagged]
- throwawy9995 7mo ago[dead]
- drra 7mo agoFunny how most flipped from being grammar nazi to mistakes are proof of human authorship.
- the_ai_wizarrd 7mo agoNow this is rich. I actually don't disagree with the intent, but it's just funny to me that the tech overlords are attempting to replace so many jobs with AI, but when it affects them, oh no, not us. We are the exempt elite.
- mitchitized 7mo agoYou're absolutely right! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) I could be the lone dissenter here, but to me well-written comments are a lot more fun to read than near-gibberish. I wished more people tried harder to be better communicators, but it is what it is. If AI can decipher these comments and produce a much more coherent statement, then I'm for it.
- QuantumGood 7mo agoAnd be kinder to obviously human posts and help them.
- notanastronaut 7mo ago>>However, with the recent chat based AI models, this agreement has been turned around. It is now easier to get a written message than to read it. Reading it now takes more effort. If a person is not going to take the time to express messages based on their own thoughts, then they do not have sufficient respect for the reader, and their comments can be dismissed for that reason. Unless you're a billionaire* or a CEO firing off memos where you fire half your company's workforce. u got to be powerful to puond out a txt this way and have ppl still listen to u. Otherwise, it is getting dismissed because 'you didn't put enough effort into the comment, so I'm not going to read it.' That is amusing to me. *Reference to the analysis performed on the Epstein emails and texts.
- trinsic2 7mo agoI dont post AI generate anything, but I do get snarky... Ahh shoot sorry guys I didn't even see the guidelines. I broke so many. Ill keep all that in mind. Whats been happening in the world right know has really been getting to me and the bots or the people that support authoritarianism really makes me sad and angry that the world is being destroyed by careless people..
- realaaa 7mo ago[flagged]
- misterflibble 7mo agoI'm perfectly content to post my poorly spelt words and grammatical errors to authenticate myself. But I know everyone it's probably using the AI filter now. Why don't we just do AI bot to AI bot communications for everything? I'm kidding I would not like that
- akshaysasi 7mo agoyes
- earonesty 7mo agoagreed. ai-generated seo will kill your site too!
- kklouis999 7mo agokill ia or killed by ai
- danielszlaski 6mo agoBroken English from someone who actually shipped the thing beats polished prose from someone who just asked an LLM about it.