6 ms·

Hm, this comment makes me realize that there isn’t really a social consensus on whether or not AI generated content is welcome in these kinds of discussions. On

Hm, this comment makes me realize that there isn’t really a social consensus on whether or not AI generated content is welcome in these kinds of discussions. On one hand, I’m generally annoyed any time I see unsolicited AI generations because it’s usually garbage and I could have just asked an AI myself. But in this case I probably wasn’t going to and this comment is genuinely insightful… I guess I would have preferred some kind of qualifier at the beginning saying it’s not written by a human

linotype 1y ago
Can you point out what part of the summary is wrong? You’re welcome to write your own summary that’s as detailed as the one I posted with any necessary corrections and I’ll delete my post.
- shaldengeki 1y ago
  HN's moderation team has been pretty clear that generated comments aren't welcome here. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=author%3Adang%20generated%20comments&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
  - linotype 1y ago
    They’re free to delete it. I think it adds value.
    - tomhow 1y ago
      We don't delete things that users have posted (unless they specifically ask us to). It's long been a norm on HN that summary/tl;dr comments are not welcome. We want people's comments to be in response to the full article, not the summary. Sometimes a summary will be an inaccurate representation of the article, and when users base their response on the summary (without reading the article), it poisons the comments thread. You weren't to know as it's not explicitly stated in the guidelines, but it is one of the norms that the moderation team and community has converged on over many years.
- neitherboosh 1y ago
  I actually don’t think the summary is bad and I do think the comment is helpful and am glad to have read it; I just would have preferred to know it was AI before I started reading.
umvi 1y ago
Yeah kind of like how people put "IANAL but ..." before offering legal advice. Maybe we need a new acronym: "AIG but ..." (AI generated but ...) or maybe "NEWAI but ..." (Non-expert wielding AI but...)
julienchastang 1y ago
I also agree that this comment is likely AI generated (i.e., "why this matters" gave it away for me. I think I've seen this phrase a lot with ChatGPT). I think it is the last part of the last sentence and the toeing of the party line that bugs me, "likely aimed at improving security screening and preventing abuse of the system". It's "Manufacturing Consent"[0] à la 21st Century. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
- linotype 1y ago
  Again, please point out what’s wrong in the post and I will correct it.
  - julienchastang 1y ago
    "likely aimed at improving security screening and preventing abuse of the system" This is an opinion. Is it yours, or the AI's? Moreover, is the AI just trying to be agreeable or is this coming from a platform that has a political agenda, in this case supporting the political actors that are in charge of this visa change? These are the questions that we need to ask ourselves in these modern times.
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    As jeffbee says, most HN users are perfectly capable of using ChatGPT as well.
jeffbee 1y ago
> isn’t really a social consensus I feel the consensus is clear. Reposting blurbs from robots is anathematic to our discourse.
- linotype 1y ago
  Your comment adds way less value than the one I generated, reviewed and posted. I refuse to be bullied by people that are anti-AI.
  - jeffbee 1y ago
    Your comment added nothing, because anyone can get ChatGPT to generate that exact comment.
    - baggy_trough 1y ago
      Now we don't have to.
    - linotype 1y ago
      It was convenience so dozens or hundreds of people didn’t have to. Seriously regret trying to be helpful here.
- baggy_trough 1y ago
  Be careful not to define consensus by whatever you think is a good idea.

linotype 1y ago

Can you point out what part of the summary is wrong? You’re welcome to write your own summary that’s as detailed as the one I posted with any necessary corrections and I’ll delete my post.

shaldengeki 1y ago
HN's moderation team has been pretty clear that generated comments aren't welcome here. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=author%3Adang%20generated%20comments&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
- linotype 1y ago
  They’re free to delete it. I think it adds value.
  - tomhow 1y ago
    We don't delete things that users have posted (unless they specifically ask us to). It's long been a norm on HN that summary/tl;dr comments are not welcome. We want people's comments to be in response to the full article, not the summary. Sometimes a summary will be an inaccurate representation of the article, and when users base their response on the summary (without reading the article), it poisons the comments thread. You weren't to know as it's not explicitly stated in the guidelines, but it is one of the norms that the moderation team and community has converged on over many years.
neitherboosh 1y ago
I actually don’t think the summary is bad and I do think the comment is helpful and am glad to have read it; I just would have preferred to know it was AI before I started reading.

umvi 1y ago

Yeah kind of like how people put "IANAL but ..." before offering legal advice. Maybe we need a new acronym: "AIG but ..." (AI generated but ...) or maybe "NEWAI but ..." (Non-expert wielding AI but...)

julienchastang 1y ago

I also agree that this comment is likely AI generated (i.e., "why this matters" gave it away for me. I think I've seen this phrase a lot with ChatGPT). I think it is the last part of the last sentence and the toeing of the party line that bugs me, "likely aimed at improving security screening and preventing abuse of the system". It's "Manufacturing Consent"[0] à la 21st Century. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

linotype 1y ago
Again, please point out what’s wrong in the post and I will correct it.
- julienchastang 1y ago
  "likely aimed at improving security screening and preventing abuse of the system" This is an opinion. Is it yours, or the AI's? Moreover, is the AI just trying to be agreeable or is this coming from a platform that has a political agenda, in this case supporting the political actors that are in charge of this visa change? These are the questions that we need to ask ourselves in these modern times.
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  As jeffbee says, most HN users are perfectly capable of using ChatGPT as well.

jeffbee 1y ago

> isn’t really a social consensus I feel the consensus is clear. Reposting blurbs from robots is anathematic to our discourse.

linotype 1y ago
Your comment adds way less value than the one I generated, reviewed and posted. I refuse to be bullied by people that are anti-AI.
- jeffbee 1y ago
  Your comment added nothing, because anyone can get ChatGPT to generate that exact comment.
  - baggy_trough 1y ago
    Now we don't have to.
  - linotype 1y ago
    It was convenience so dozens or hundreds of people didn’t have to. Seriously regret trying to be helpful here.
baggy_trough 1y ago
Be careful not to define consensus by whatever you think is a good idea.