3 ms·

You're touching on an important point. More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47342616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47342616. All this stuff i

by dang 8mo ago

You're touching on an important point. More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47342616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47342616. All this stuff is in flux. I thought a lot about whether to add the "edited" bit - but it may change. What I deliberately left out was anything about the articles and projects that get submitted here. There's a lot of turbulence in that area too, but we don't yet have clarity, or even an inkling, of how to settle that one. Edit: what I mean is this: while most of those submissions aren't very interesting, some really are. Here's an example from earlier today: Show HN: Vanilla JavaScript refinery simulator built to explain job to my kids - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47338091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47338091 How do we close the aperture for the lame stuff while opening wider for the good stuff? That is far from clear.

schappim 8mo ago
Please rethink the “edited” bit on accessibility grounds. I have a kid with severe written language issues, and the utilisation of speech to text with a LLM-powered edit has unlocked a whole world that was previously inaccessible. I would hate to see a culture that discourages AI assistance.
- BeetleB 8mo ago
  Oh wow. I did not anticipate that, which is embarrassing given that I wrote this just recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47326351 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47326351 Yes, please at least have a carveout for accessibility. I definitely have dictated HN comments in the past, and my flow uses LLMs to clean it up. It works, and is awesome when you're in pain.
- pesfandiar 8mo ago
  Hear hear. And like many other aspects of accessibility, it will help a huge number of people who may not have any severe issues. e.g. non-native English speakers using LLM-powered edits.
- happytoexplain 8mo ago
  Since it's mostly a good-faith rule to begin with, it seems easy to add something like, "unless you are using it as an assistive technology for accessibility reasons".
  - dang 8mo ago
    Yes, and that's the case with all the rules. I don't want to say "you should break them when it makes sense" because if I do, someone will post "Tell HN: dang says break the rules". But the rules are there to serve the intended spirit of the site—not the other way around. If you're posting in that spirit, I would hope we would recognize and and welcome that, not tut-tut it with rules.
- davorak 8mo ago
  Are you up for sharing details? > I would hate to see a culture that discourages AI assistance. Mostly I think the push back is about ai assistance in its current form. It can get in the way of communicating rather than assisting. The cost though is mostly borne by the readers and those not using the AI for assistance. I have seen this happen when the ai adds info and thoughts that were tangental to the original author and I think, but I can not verify times where an author seems to try to dig down on the details but seemingly can not.
- dang 8mo ago
  That's totally legit and your kid, should they ever take an interest in Hacker News, is welcome here. These rules are always fuzzy and there's always a long tail of exceptions. All the more so under turbulent conditions like right now. I wrote more about this elsewhere in the thread, in case it's useful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47342616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47342616.
dataflow 8mo ago
Do the guidelines also disallow comments along the lines of "according to <AI>, <blah>"? (I ask this given that "according to a Google search, <blah>" is allowed, AFAIK.)
- BeetleB 8mo ago
  I would lean towards disallowing those. With "According to a Google search ...", someone can ask for specific links (and indeed, people often say to link to those sources to begin with instead of invoking Google). With "According to AI ... " - why would most readers care what the AI thinks? It's not a reliable source! You might as well say "According to a stranger I just met and don't know ..." If you're going to say that the AI said X, Y, Z, provide a rationale on why it is relevant. If you merely found X, Y and Z compelling, feel free to talk about it without mentioning AI.
  - dataflow 8mo ago
    For reference, the point here isn't to say "what AI thinks", but what you found with the help of AI. The majority of the cases where I would say "according to AI, <blah>" are where <blah> actually does cite sources that I feel appear plausible. Sometimes they're links, sometimes they would be other publications not necessarily a click away. Sometimes I could independently verify them by spending half an hour researching (which is), sometimes I can't. Sometimes I could spend half an hour verifying them independently, sometimes I can't do that but they still seem worthwhile. > If you merely found X, Y and Z compelling, feel free to talk about it without mentioning AI. I think you're seeing this as too black-and-white, and missing the heart of the issue. The purpose of mentioning AI is to convey the level of (un)certainty as accurately as possible. The most accurate way to do that would often be to mention any use of AI, rather than hiding it. If AI tells me that it believes X is true because of links A and B that it cites, and I find those links compelling, then I absolutely want to mention that AI gave me those links because I have no clue whether the model had any reason to bias itself toward those sources, or whether alternate links may have existed that stated otherwise. Whereas if a normal web search just gives links that mention terms from my query, then I get a chance to see the other links too, and I end up being the one who actually compare the contents of the different pages and figure out which one is most convincing. Depending on various factors, such as the nature of the question and the level of background knowledge I have on the topic myself, one of these can provide a more useful response than the other -- but only if I convey the uncertainty around it accurately.
crossroadsguy 8mo ago
I wasn't sure whether it was an omission or an unintended gap, as the guideline specifically points to "comments". So it seems AI generated/edited posts are fine. Strange, because both can be flagged/downvoted if it was to be left with that.
- dang 8mo ago
  I'm not saying they're all fine, I'm saying we don't yet have any idea of where to make a cut. The comments thing is a lot more intimate in the sense that anyone posting comments is inside the house.

by dang 8mo ago

schappim 8mo ago

Please rethink the “edited” bit on accessibility grounds. I have a kid with severe written language issues, and the utilisation of speech to text with a LLM-powered edit has unlocked a whole world that was previously inaccessible. I would hate to see a culture that discourages AI assistance.

BeetleB 8mo ago
Oh wow. I did not anticipate that, which is embarrassing given that I wrote this just recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47326351 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47326351 Yes, please at least have a carveout for accessibility. I definitely have dictated HN comments in the past, and my flow uses LLMs to clean it up. It works, and is awesome when you're in pain.
pesfandiar 8mo ago
Hear hear. And like many other aspects of accessibility, it will help a huge number of people who may not have any severe issues. e.g. non-native English speakers using LLM-powered edits.
happytoexplain 8mo ago
Since it's mostly a good-faith rule to begin with, it seems easy to add something like, "unless you are using it as an assistive technology for accessibility reasons".
- dang 8mo ago
  Yes, and that's the case with all the rules. I don't want to say "you should break them when it makes sense" because if I do, someone will post "Tell HN: dang says break the rules". But the rules are there to serve the intended spirit of the site—not the other way around. If you're posting in that spirit, I would hope we would recognize and and welcome that, not tut-tut it with rules.
davorak 8mo ago
Are you up for sharing details? > I would hate to see a culture that discourages AI assistance. Mostly I think the push back is about ai assistance in its current form. It can get in the way of communicating rather than assisting. The cost though is mostly borne by the readers and those not using the AI for assistance. I have seen this happen when the ai adds info and thoughts that were tangental to the original author and I think, but I can not verify times where an author seems to try to dig down on the details but seemingly can not.
dang 8mo ago
That's totally legit and your kid, should they ever take an interest in Hacker News, is welcome here. These rules are always fuzzy and there's always a long tail of exceptions. All the more so under turbulent conditions like right now. I wrote more about this elsewhere in the thread, in case it's useful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47342616 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47342616.

dataflow 8mo ago

Do the guidelines also disallow comments along the lines of "according to <AI>, <blah>"? (I ask this given that "according to a Google search, <blah>" is allowed, AFAIK.)

BeetleB 8mo ago
I would lean towards disallowing those. With "According to a Google search ...", someone can ask for specific links (and indeed, people often say to link to those sources to begin with instead of invoking Google). With "According to AI ... " - why would most readers care what the AI thinks? It's not a reliable source! You might as well say "According to a stranger I just met and don't know ..." If you're going to say that the AI said X, Y, Z, provide a rationale on why it is relevant. If you merely found X, Y and Z compelling, feel free to talk about it without mentioning AI.
- dataflow 8mo ago
  For reference, the point here isn't to say "what AI thinks", but what you found with the help of AI. The majority of the cases where I would say "according to AI, <blah>" are where <blah> actually does cite sources that I feel appear plausible. Sometimes they're links, sometimes they would be other publications not necessarily a click away. Sometimes I could independently verify them by spending half an hour researching (which is), sometimes I can't. Sometimes I could spend half an hour verifying them independently, sometimes I can't do that but they still seem worthwhile. > If you merely found X, Y and Z compelling, feel free to talk about it without mentioning AI. I think you're seeing this as too black-and-white, and missing the heart of the issue. The purpose of mentioning AI is to convey the level of (un)certainty as accurately as possible. The most accurate way to do that would often be to mention any use of AI, rather than hiding it. If AI tells me that it believes X is true because of links A and B that it cites, and I find those links compelling, then I absolutely want to mention that AI gave me those links because I have no clue whether the model had any reason to bias itself toward those sources, or whether alternate links may have existed that stated otherwise. Whereas if a normal web search just gives links that mention terms from my query, then I get a chance to see the other links too, and I end up being the one who actually compare the contents of the different pages and figure out which one is most convincing. Depending on various factors, such as the nature of the question and the level of background knowledge I have on the topic myself, one of these can provide a more useful response than the other -- but only if I convey the uncertainty around it accurately.

crossroadsguy 8mo ago

I wasn't sure whether it was an omission or an unintended gap, as the guideline specifically points to "comments". So it seems AI generated/edited posts are fine. Strange, because both can be flagged/downvoted if it was to be left with that.

dang 8mo ago
I'm not saying they're all fine, I'm saying we don't yet have any idea of where to make a cut. The comments thing is a lot more intimate in the sense that anyone posting comments is inside the house.