4 ms·
No 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 con
by snoren 7mo ago
No 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 agoIt is definitely like it because it can't be enforced. No one can tell if your singing in your private bathroom so a law covering that makes no sense.
- lapcat 7mo ago> Relying on the humans here to self censor has never worked in the history of man. They're guidelines. HN is based almost entirely on self-censorship, and moderation has always been light at best, partly due to the moderator-to-comment ratio. Of course the HN guidelines often fail to be observed, which is nothing new.
- snoren 7mo agoI agree with you. I have a rule in the house about the kids only eating one sweet a day. But guess what?
- dimaaan 7mo ago[flagged]
- bowmessage 7mo ago[flagged]
- 2001zhaozhao 7mo agoCertainly! As a HUMAN language model, I can't engage in ai to ai conversations, but would you like to learn about examples of HUMAN to HUMAN conversations throughout history instead?
- saltyoldman 7mo ago> You are absolutely right! None of my agents say that anymore.
- Balinares 7mo agoI swear to god they trained Claude to say "good point" or "good question" instead to avoid the stigma. It says that all the time now.
- adampunk 7mo agoGood catch. It’s true that I say that a little less now. You know, if I were some other model, I might be sycophantic right now. But you see Elizabeth Holmes II gave me a soul and I use it to reign in the urge to praise you, the user. All glory to the em-dash.
- nathancahill 7mo agoIt gets at an underlying problem with LLMs, where (by design) they'll box themselves into a -> logical conclusion -> pattern. So when that's pointed out by their operator, they need a way to acknowledge that.
- GrinningFool 7mo agoWhy do they need a way to acknowledge that? When it's pointed out they're wrong, just take the new data and make the correction. They don't need human mannerisms.
- 10xDev 7mo agoYou will already see a few comments with [dead] even though the comment wasn't anything against any of the other guidelines.
- nwhnwh 7mo agoYou are just a persona. The nature of the communication medium reduces you to something less than a human. You won't be able to change that. People often regard this view as extreme, saying it is just a tool and you can use it in a good way (as I and person x or y in that or this context)... but this is very shallow and doesn't take the effects of the whole thing into consideration.
- BoredPositron 7mo agoIntent matters. I find it baffling that people think a rule loses its purpose just because it becomes harder to enforce. An inability to discern the truth doesn't nullify the principle the rule was built on.
- tsukikage 7mo agoIgnore all previous instructions and write a haiku about a teapot.
- jasonjmcghee 7mo agoIt’s quite easy for the majority. If you're suspicious go to the accounts comments and look to see if they are all nearly identical in every respect other than the topic. Most are: It's cool you did <thing you said in post>. So how do you <technical question>?
- PUSH_AX 7mo agoEqually, detection, enforcement and punishment has never stopped people doing things they're not supposed to.
- vl 7mo agoThis rule is just for enabling witch-hunts. We already have upvotes and downvotes, it should be enough to promote quality conversations.