If HN policy disallows AI comments, why is linking to AI generated content ok?
10 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47477284 was definitely somewhere between generated by and edited by AI.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48411799 originally linked to the pdf version which is clearly AI generated.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47602500 Also clearly AI edited.
Separately I've gotten down voted for pointing out something is AI generated, but if it's explicitly policy that it isn't allowed, it seems like that should be written down.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48411799 originally linked to the pdf version which is clearly AI generated.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47602500 Also clearly AI edited.
Separately I've gotten down voted for pointing out something is AI generated, but if it's explicitly policy that it isn't allowed, it seems like that should be written down.
Because having rules on HN comments means users adapt their writing to those rules. Whereas the same on external content means potentially missing out on interesting stuff. We've already seen big announcements being clearly AI generated.
HN is big enough that its standards could propagate beyond these walls.
I think there's little point in making a policy against something that we already know people will ignore en masse, and which can't often be objectively enforced to begin with. This forum is at the epicenter of the industry that is trying to normalize AI generated content everywhere. People here want to read it and post it and talk about it and use it, and for better or worse AI maximalism is what tech culture is converging towards. As much as I agree with the stance against AI the intransigence of HN isn't going to stop it, there is only so much that site guidelines can do.
I understand your point, but I will say that many of the other policies also are not capable of being truly objectively enforced either ("I know it when I see it"). An effort could be made to define an approximate boundary.
Perhaps the moderator comment about "obvious smell" being killed is defining that line and the line allows lots of fairly obviously AI edited prose through. We've chosen a boundary and it's different from what I'd like (and think is best in the long run for humanity), but I will accept it and move on.
Perhaps the moderator comment about "obvious smell" being killed is defining that line and the line allows lots of fairly obviously AI edited prose through. We've chosen a boundary and it's different from what I'd like (and think is best in the long run for humanity), but I will accept it and move on.
I think it should not be allowed, for logical consistency, if not for the sake of civility. If someone thought so little of their audience that they let an "AI" write and/or draw a post, it seems thoughtless to ask a human to waste their precious time reading it.
Personally I don't mind AI content if it still reads like a human took some raw materials and sculpted - but a simple post is so low effort AI should not be rewarded here.
For the record, I'm not against the use of AI during the writing process. It can be used to make the final product better without eliminating the human authors style. I am against everything I read turning into one monoculture of AI produced prose, even if humans put some thought into what the prose is communicating.
Even if I thought that the style of AI produced prose was good, I still wouldn't want it to be the only style of writing I ever read unless I open a book written before 2022.
Even if I thought that the style of AI produced prose was good, I still wouldn't want it to be the only style of writing I ever read unless I open a book written before 2022.
"Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans."
Do you have a specific example of something that should not be allowed but did not get flagkilled?