We don't allow genai text on HN itself - see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#generated https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#generat

We don't allow genai text on HN itself - see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#generated https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#generated and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079. How to enforce it is a separate question, of course, but the rule exists. We don't have a similar rule yet about article content but my sense is that the community mostly doesn't want to read it—or, to put it more conservatively, discounts it. This is why we see so many "just show me the prompt" responses, along with others like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/genai-pushback https://news.ycombinator.com/genai-pushback. I built that list so I have something to send to users who email about why their genai articles got flagged. It's a fascinating arms race right now: the AIs are training on the humans but the human hivemind is also training on the AIs. Readers are developing allergic sensitivities to language that sounds like an LLM produced it. The AIs will adapt to this, but the humans will adapt in turn. Where it ends up is anyone's guess. For the present, there is an emerging class distinction between writing (and writers) that use genai vs. writing that does not. As soon as the "this sounds like an LLM" allergy kicks in, the writing instantly gets relegated to a low-status bucket in the reader's mind. That doesn't mean it won't still get looked at - but it is now under a stigma. (I was rather pleased with the originality of this until I remembered pg had come up with "writes and write-nots" in https://paulgraham.com/writes.html https://paulgraham.com/writes.html. Oh well, it's the point that matters.) This has the happy flipside that anyone who would like readers to classify their article as high-status rather than low-status can apply the judo move of simply writing it themselves. Now I need to add the disclaimer that none of this is a dismissal of LLM technology per se. We rely on it heavily, and there's no question that it's useful. The question is how to use it (pg again: https://x.com/paulg/status/2058871512451412457 https://x.com/paulg/status/2058871512451412457) and whether one should use it on writing that one publishes to other humans. To turn to OP's questions: > Should HN add the ability to flag articles as AI-generated? [...] it could just show up as an indicator Flagging-as-just-an-indicator would be tagging, which we've always resisted adding to HN, but I wouldn't rule it out. What I do think we'll (finally) add is a "please give a reason why you flagged this post" step, and "because I think it's genai" will be one choice among several (spam, offtopic, mean, etc.) > Why is the regular voting system not enough? The regular voting system is never enough. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22upvotes%20alone%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... > Should HN change in response to the gen AI era? To this I am tempted to reply with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48887149 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48887149 in homage to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3742902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3742902.