4 ms·

AI could have helped the author write what he's trying to say in one three word sentence: don't use AI. Because in his view, if you use AI and don't disclose i

AI could have helped the author write what he's trying to say in one three word sentence: don't use AI. Because in his view, if you use AI and don't disclose it, you're a liar. And if you use AI and disclose it, he won't trust you anyway.

throwawaysoxjje 4mo ago
That summary makes the point but doesn’t communicate the meaning
- ElProlactin 4mo ago
  You're right, but I don't think there's anything particularly insightful about the author's perspective. People are allowed to set their expectations/standards but in 2026 taking the position that use of AI is lying (when not disclosed) and trust destroying (when disclosed) is basically going to set you up for a lot of disappointment. It's just unrealistic. For better or worse, AI is being used everywhere and it's harder and harder to spot, especially when the use is "thoughtful". Your only real defense is to think critically about the content you're consuming to determine whether it's accurate and has value.
  - BrenBarn 4mo ago
    > People are allowed to set their expectations/standards but in 2026 taking the position that use of AI is lying (when not disclosed) and trust destroying (when disclosed) is basically going to set you up for a lot of disappointment. It's just unrealistic. Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.
    - ElProlactin 4mo ago
      Or you could engage with content critically, understanding that in this day and age, you can't be 100% sure of its provenance. Decide whether it's accurate, insightful, worth thinking about and researching further, etc. based on its substance, not who you think produced it and how.
      - fragmede 4mo ago
        Ugh that sounds like a lot of work. Are you sure we can't just throw shallow dismissals around and feel smug about it, rather than interacting with the contents of what something is saying?
        ElProlactin 4mo ago
        > Ugh that sounds like a lot of work. Isn't that, ironically, exactly the sentiment that motivates people to use AI to produce content? I think your comment hints at the reality: we're all just increasingly lazy. We want to minimize how much time and effort it takes to produce content, and at the same time we want to minimize how much time and effort it takes to engage with it. It's a vicious cycle.
      - yoz-y 4mo ago
        You are asking many readers to do substantial amount of work for something nobody potentially put any effort into. This is the fundamental imbalance. Much like answering unknown numbers, reading articles from new sources has become a time wasting trap. It is absolutely possible to produce an insightful article using AI. But it intakes skill and dedication few people have.
        ElProlactin 4mo ago
        > You are asking many readers to do substantial amount of work for something nobody potentially put any effort into. This is the fundamental imbalance. Much like answering unknown numbers, reading articles from new sources has become a time wasting trap. But AI is only the latest continuation of what you're describing. The internet has been full of slop (clickbait, SEO-bait, etc.) and propaganda/disinformation for many years before AI was even a thing. Social media gave every person on the planet with a heartbeat and internet connection a publishing platform over a decade ago. The only realistic approach for dealing with this is to exercise critical thought when you consume content. And if the massive volume of content we're flooded with is problematic, narrow the sources from which you consume content and consume less of it. Get off social media. Disavow YouTube. Don't doom scroll the news. And so on.
    - skeledrew 4mo ago
      Likely will be in for a life of much dissatisfaction.
  - numpad0 4mo ago
    > it's harder and harder to spot, especially when the use is "thoughtful". It's not, only suckers think otherwise. The more you consume, the easier it gets to spot them, and also you get bored of it quicker. Which is fine for an actual tool. IMO: if you think it's problematic if people could spot AI tool marks, you're not actually viewing or using AI as a tool. Rocket scientists aren't ashamed of using high end 5-axis CNC or SLS laser metal 3D printers to make rocket engines. Good machinists can tell how they were made, and that should mostly inspire confidence. If someone thinks the tool marks for a specific type of a tool needs to be hidden for the artifacts to be trusted, there has to be something wrong somewhere with the tool or how it's used, or both. Likely both. Anyone looking at a Boeing 787 can tell that it flies on a pair of turbofan engines, and it's cool. Most people looking at AI images can tell it's generated using AI, and some can even identify models used, and that is NOT cool. That should be a strong enough sign that something is wrong with AI.
    - ElProlactin 4mo ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48609233 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48609233 This was on the front page for a while yesterday. A decent amount of discussion. I'm quite sure this was produced using AI. I was the only person who mentioned it. AI is really easy to spot if it's being used to do all the work. It's less easy to spot when it's being used as a starting point, for editorial passes, concept development, argument refinement, etc.
nkrisc 4mo ago
It’s a perfectly reasonable position, though that may be because I share it. If you’ve “written” something with AI, I have idea if you even read it, thus I have no idea if it even really reflects your thoughts. And I don’t care what a computer has to say, I care what a human has to say.
- locknitpicker 4mo ago
  > If you’ve “written” something with AI, I have idea if you even read it, thus I have no idea if it even really reflects your thoughts. And I don’t care what a computer has to say, I care what a human has to say. At a more fundamental level, if AI generated it then I have no trust it is actually true or reflects facts or matches reality. It's insulting to throw AI slop at us because you expect us to read something you didn't bothered to write or perhaps even read. The text is probably all wrong with a veneer of well sounding verbiage, and potentially is created to drive engagement instead of actually communicating useful information.
- diydsp 4mo ago
  That's an argument against people actng lszy, not against them using ai.
- cryo32 4mo ago
  I fully agree with this. The problem we have now is determining if the person actually wrote it. It suddenly got a lot easier for people to get someone else to generate text. And there are a lot more lazy humans than skilled writers.
kennywinker 4mo ago
And the great gatsby can be summarized as “rich guy throws parties and then dies” - but sometimes saying something slowly is the point. Sometimes doing something slowly is the point too.
satisfice 4mo ago
If you are serious, then AI has already begin to rot your brain. My post was much more than saying “don’t use AI.” I use AI. I even use AI adjacent to my writing. But with me, you always know that my written words are directly from me. They sound like me. I pretty much write how I talk, albeit more grammatically. My post was about why you are taking a big risk with your reputation/brand if you let AI draft your written communication on your behalf.
- ElProlactin 4mo ago
  > If you are serious, then AI has already begin to rot your brain. First, it's not a good look to start off your rebuttal with an ad hominem. Based on the high standards you speak to in your post, and your concern about reputations, I would have expected more. > I use AI. I even use AI adjacent to my writing. But with me, you always know that my written words are directly from me. They sound like me. I pretty much write how I talk, albeit more grammatically. To play the role of cynic, what does "AI adjacent to my writing" even mean? You wrote in your post: > If AI deeply collaborates with you to write something, why am I saying you shouldn’t say you used AI? Because all I have is your word for it that you did any work at all. Who decides if your "adjacent" use of AI was deep or meaningful? You wrote: > Unless I know exactly how you did that work– which would have to have been from personal observation– I can’t know the truth. You're admitting that you use AI but only "adjacent to [your] writing". Even if you explain what that means, how can I trust you? I wasn't there to personally observe how you used AI. If you consult with AI in any fashion to flesh out an idea, test your arguments, etc., someone with an even more extreme position could say, "Well, even if he wrote the words, AI must have influenced his writing in some way, perhaps even unconsciously, and therefore everything he wrote is tainted."
  - satisfice 4mo ago
    It's not a good look to start a comment with any variation of "you're being rude," either. So I guess both of us are prickly? You misunderstood my blog post in an odd way that's hard for me to account for unless you just didn't read carefully. Hence, my annoyed quip. I wrote in my policy, referred to in the post, that I never have AI draft anything for me. But I was quite explicit that I may use AI to aid my research in various ways-- just as I use Google search and other tools. I might create a monte carlo simulation to test my understanding of probability before making a bold pronouncement about statistical matter, too. So, what I mean by adjacent is "next to" but not "on top of" or "inside." That's what most people mean by adjacent. I don't have AI draft any text for me. I type it all myself. I choose the words and sentence forms and rhetorical structure and overall strategy myself. That's how you know it's me and not some AI masquerading as me.
dang 4mo ago
I don't think this is accurate. The key sentence is "don’t use AI to write things for you that you present as your own work". This leaves many other ways to use AI. I've put that sentence in the title above because (per https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) it seems less misleading.

throwawaysoxjje 4mo ago

That summary makes the point but doesn’t communicate the meaning

ElProlactin 4mo ago
You're right, but I don't think there's anything particularly insightful about the author's perspective. People are allowed to set their expectations/standards but in 2026 taking the position that use of AI is lying (when not disclosed) and trust destroying (when disclosed) is basically going to set you up for a lot of disappointment. It's just unrealistic. For better or worse, AI is being used everywhere and it's harder and harder to spot, especially when the use is "thoughtful". Your only real defense is to think critically about the content you're consuming to determine whether it's accurate and has value.
- BrenBarn 4mo ago
  > People are allowed to set their expectations/standards but in 2026 taking the position that use of AI is lying (when not disclosed) and trust destroying (when disclosed) is basically going to set you up for a lot of disappointment. It's just unrealistic. Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.
  - ElProlactin 4mo ago
    Or you could engage with content critically, understanding that in this day and age, you can't be 100% sure of its provenance. Decide whether it's accurate, insightful, worth thinking about and researching further, etc. based on its substance, not who you think produced it and how.
    - fragmede 4mo ago
      Ugh that sounds like a lot of work. Are you sure we can't just throw shallow dismissals around and feel smug about it, rather than interacting with the contents of what something is saying?
      - ElProlactin 4mo ago
        > Ugh that sounds like a lot of work. Isn't that, ironically, exactly the sentiment that motivates people to use AI to produce content? I think your comment hints at the reality: we're all just increasingly lazy. We want to minimize how much time and effort it takes to produce content, and at the same time we want to minimize how much time and effort it takes to engage with it. It's a vicious cycle.
    - yoz-y 4mo ago
      You are asking many readers to do substantial amount of work for something nobody potentially put any effort into. This is the fundamental imbalance. Much like answering unknown numbers, reading articles from new sources has become a time wasting trap. It is absolutely possible to produce an insightful article using AI. But it intakes skill and dedication few people have.
      - ElProlactin 4mo ago
        > You are asking many readers to do substantial amount of work for something nobody potentially put any effort into. This is the fundamental imbalance. Much like answering unknown numbers, reading articles from new sources has become a time wasting trap. But AI is only the latest continuation of what you're describing. The internet has been full of slop (clickbait, SEO-bait, etc.) and propaganda/disinformation for many years before AI was even a thing. Social media gave every person on the planet with a heartbeat and internet connection a publishing platform over a decade ago. The only realistic approach for dealing with this is to exercise critical thought when you consume content. And if the massive volume of content we're flooded with is problematic, narrow the sources from which you consume content and consume less of it. Get off social media. Disavow YouTube. Don't doom scroll the news. And so on.
  - skeledrew 4mo ago
    Likely will be in for a life of much dissatisfaction.
- numpad0 4mo ago
  > it's harder and harder to spot, especially when the use is "thoughtful". It's not, only suckers think otherwise. The more you consume, the easier it gets to spot them, and also you get bored of it quicker. Which is fine for an actual tool. IMO: if you think it's problematic if people could spot AI tool marks, you're not actually viewing or using AI as a tool. Rocket scientists aren't ashamed of using high end 5-axis CNC or SLS laser metal 3D printers to make rocket engines. Good machinists can tell how they were made, and that should mostly inspire confidence. If someone thinks the tool marks for a specific type of a tool needs to be hidden for the artifacts to be trusted, there has to be something wrong somewhere with the tool or how it's used, or both. Likely both. Anyone looking at a Boeing 787 can tell that it flies on a pair of turbofan engines, and it's cool. Most people looking at AI images can tell it's generated using AI, and some can even identify models used, and that is NOT cool. That should be a strong enough sign that something is wrong with AI.
  - ElProlactin 4mo ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48609233 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48609233 This was on the front page for a while yesterday. A decent amount of discussion. I'm quite sure this was produced using AI. I was the only person who mentioned it. AI is really easy to spot if it's being used to do all the work. It's less easy to spot when it's being used as a starting point, for editorial passes, concept development, argument refinement, etc.

nkrisc 4mo ago

It’s a perfectly reasonable position, though that may be because I share it. If you’ve “written” something with AI, I have idea if you even read it, thus I have no idea if it even really reflects your thoughts. And I don’t care what a computer has to say, I care what a human has to say.

locknitpicker 4mo ago
> If you’ve “written” something with AI, I have idea if you even read it, thus I have no idea if it even really reflects your thoughts. And I don’t care what a computer has to say, I care what a human has to say. At a more fundamental level, if AI generated it then I have no trust it is actually true or reflects facts or matches reality. It's insulting to throw AI slop at us because you expect us to read something you didn't bothered to write or perhaps even read. The text is probably all wrong with a veneer of well sounding verbiage, and potentially is created to drive engagement instead of actually communicating useful information.
diydsp 4mo ago
That's an argument against people actng lszy, not against them using ai.
cryo32 4mo ago
I fully agree with this. The problem we have now is determining if the person actually wrote it. It suddenly got a lot easier for people to get someone else to generate text. And there are a lot more lazy humans than skilled writers.

kennywinker 4mo ago

And the great gatsby can be summarized as “rich guy throws parties and then dies” - but sometimes saying something slowly is the point. Sometimes doing something slowly is the point too.

satisfice 4mo ago

If you are serious, then AI has already begin to rot your brain. My post was much more than saying “don’t use AI.” I use AI. I even use AI adjacent to my writing. But with me, you always know that my written words are directly from me. They sound like me. I pretty much write how I talk, albeit more grammatically. My post was about why you are taking a big risk with your reputation/brand if you let AI draft your written communication on your behalf.

ElProlactin 4mo ago
> If you are serious, then AI has already begin to rot your brain. First, it's not a good look to start off your rebuttal with an ad hominem. Based on the high standards you speak to in your post, and your concern about reputations, I would have expected more. > I use AI. I even use AI adjacent to my writing. But with me, you always know that my written words are directly from me. They sound like me. I pretty much write how I talk, albeit more grammatically. To play the role of cynic, what does "AI adjacent to my writing" even mean? You wrote in your post: > If AI deeply collaborates with you to write something, why am I saying you shouldn’t say you used AI? Because all I have is your word for it that you did any work at all. Who decides if your "adjacent" use of AI was deep or meaningful? You wrote: > Unless I know exactly how you did that work– which would have to have been from personal observation– I can’t know the truth. You're admitting that you use AI but only "adjacent to [your] writing". Even if you explain what that means, how can I trust you? I wasn't there to personally observe how you used AI. If you consult with AI in any fashion to flesh out an idea, test your arguments, etc., someone with an even more extreme position could say, "Well, even if he wrote the words, AI must have influenced his writing in some way, perhaps even unconsciously, and therefore everything he wrote is tainted."
- satisfice 4mo ago
  It's not a good look to start a comment with any variation of "you're being rude," either. So I guess both of us are prickly? You misunderstood my blog post in an odd way that's hard for me to account for unless you just didn't read carefully. Hence, my annoyed quip. I wrote in my policy, referred to in the post, that I never have AI draft anything for me. But I was quite explicit that I may use AI to aid my research in various ways-- just as I use Google search and other tools. I might create a monte carlo simulation to test my understanding of probability before making a bold pronouncement about statistical matter, too. So, what I mean by adjacent is "next to" but not "on top of" or "inside." That's what most people mean by adjacent. I don't have AI draft any text for me. I type it all myself. I choose the words and sentence forms and rhetorical structure and overall strategy myself. That's how you know it's me and not some AI masquerading as me.

dang 4mo ago

I don't think this is accurate. The key sentence is "don’t use AI to write things for you that you present as your own work". This leaves many other ways to use AI. I've put that sentence in the title above because (per https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) it seems less misleading.