3 ms·

HN should also limit all these self-promoting AI posts.

CodeCompost 7mo ago
I've been hiding them all. Makes the front page look a lot better.
WalterGR 7mo ago
See dang’s comments on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079 . (That link itself is a submission about HN’s recent guidelines changes to include “Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans.”)
- minimaxir 7mo ago
  I interpreted the GP as "personal blog posts about AI/LLMs", not LLM-generated comments.
  - WalterGR 7mo ago
    dang’s comments in the link above address “Show HN” submissions. (That was my interpretation of “self-promoting AI posts”… :)
sph 7mo ago
Favourite genres of posts on HN in the past 2 years: * “I am bullish about AI” * “I am an AI skeptic, [long rambling], but overall, I am bullish about AI” It’s amazing how even criticism of the technology somehow ends up being a hype post. At least there are still places on the Internet where we can have a serious discussion about the downsides.
- minimaxir 7mo ago
  As someone who wrote recently wrote the latter post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47183527 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47183527), the more nuanced approach that "AI has good and bad things" is a more real-world reflective approach than an absolute "AI is good" or "AI is bad", and at the least it's more conductive for civil discussion.
  - sph 7mo ago
    I disagree, but I am the outlier here. I prefer strong opinions than the academic conclusion that a thing has some good parts and some bad parts. I feel 99% of modern essays are afraid to take a stance about anything, and it makes for uninteresting reading and even less interesting discussion. To be fair, my issue with the born-again AI skeptic genre of posts is that it's basically clickbait. As if being a skeptic at one point makes your argument stronger, proving that the hype is real, and one should pay attention. It's intellectually dishonest, even if meant in earnest. (Your post history shows that you have been anything but an AI skeptic. Case in point about intellectual dishonesty.)
  - jaredcwhite 7mo ago
    "Asbestos has good and bad things" "Assault rifles in the hands of ordinary citizens has good and bad things" "Everyday chemicals in the food supply has good and bad things" Look, some issues require nuance. Others don't. It's gaslighting to tell activists who consider Big AI to be a net negative for society (by an order of magnitude!) that their position isn't "real-world reflective".
pamcake 7mo ago
I can foresee new subreddit rule: 'Stop complaining "This is turning into the orange site". Just report the slop.' How the tables turn.

I've been hiding them all. Makes the front page look a lot better.

See dang’s comments on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079 . (That link itself is a submission about HN’s recent guidelines changes to include “Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans.”)

minimaxir 7mo ago
I interpreted the GP as "personal blog posts about AI/LLMs", not LLM-generated comments.
- WalterGR 7mo ago
  dang’s comments in the link above address “Show HN” submissions. (That was my interpretation of “self-promoting AI posts”… :)

sph 7mo ago

Favourite genres of posts on HN in the past 2 years: * “I am bullish about AI” * “I am an AI skeptic, [long rambling], but overall, I am bullish about AI” It’s amazing how even criticism of the technology somehow ends up being a hype post. At least there are still places on the Internet where we can have a serious discussion about the downsides.

minimaxir 7mo ago
As someone who wrote recently wrote the latter post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47183527 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47183527), the more nuanced approach that "AI has good and bad things" is a more real-world reflective approach than an absolute "AI is good" or "AI is bad", and at the least it's more conductive for civil discussion.
- sph 7mo ago
  I disagree, but I am the outlier here. I prefer strong opinions than the academic conclusion that a thing has some good parts and some bad parts. I feel 99% of modern essays are afraid to take a stance about anything, and it makes for uninteresting reading and even less interesting discussion. To be fair, my issue with the born-again AI skeptic genre of posts is that it's basically clickbait. As if being a skeptic at one point makes your argument stronger, proving that the hype is real, and one should pay attention. It's intellectually dishonest, even if meant in earnest. (Your post history shows that you have been anything but an AI skeptic. Case in point about intellectual dishonesty.)
- jaredcwhite 7mo ago
  "Asbestos has good and bad things" "Assault rifles in the hands of ordinary citizens has good and bad things" "Everyday chemicals in the food supply has good and bad things" Look, some issues require nuance. Others don't. It's gaslighting to tell activists who consider Big AI to be a net negative for society (by an order of magnitude!) that their position isn't "real-world reflective".

pamcake 7mo ago

I can foresee new subreddit rule: 'Stop complaining "This is turning into the orange site". Just report the slop.' How the tables turn.