5 ms·

It's currently #1 on the front page too. HN drowning in AI slop, what a sight to behold.

by caaqil 6mo ago

sieabahlpark 6mo ago
[dead]
Esophagus4 6mo ago
It seems like there are a few stories HN will really bite on: - age verification - chat control - RTO vs. remote work - AI bubble - ditching American tech
armchairhacker 6mo ago
I support a rule to ban AI-generated/edited posts. Initially I thought they'd be fine, because AI-generated isn't intrinsically an issue and the comments can be good. But in practice, the AI posts tend to be slop, and usually there's a better human-written source for the same topic (for example, one of the many other recent "age verification is mass surveillance" posts here).
- shevy-java 6mo ago
  It is not so easy to distinguish this with 100% accuracy though. For instance, a recent example from yesterday: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21982 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21982 Part of this was written by AI, but with a human in "charge" who explained which part of AI was used here. Would that also be a bannable example for you? I am not so convinced that this is bannable per se. Perhaps it may be different if the AI-slop was not announced, but when it was announced and explained? > one of the many other recent "age verification is mass surveillance" > posts here Well, it actually is. It taps very much into other similar laws e. g. "chat control", aka chat sniffing.
  - armchairhacker 6mo ago
    I should've said "guideline". I think posts can include AI if it's reasonable and/or they're good, while the guideline gives a reason to flag AI posts that are generally bad. > It taps very much into other similar laws e. g. "chat control", aka chat sniffing. There are many recent Chat Control posts here too. I agree Chat Control is bad, and poorly-implemented age verification is bad (though it can be implemented in privacy-preserving ways, albeit ineffectively; I commented about this 42 days ago at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47123507 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47123507, and it was stale then). I don't want to hear anymore about it. Maybe I need a filter myself, for the lucky 10,000. But the problem even for them, is that the repeated posts (without links to previous posts) have mostly low-effort comments, because people who made high-effort comments can't/won't keep repeating them.
strgrd 6mo ago
The vast majority of HN commentors react to the headline and don't bother to click through.

It's currently #1 on the front page too. HN drowning in AI slop, what a sight to behold.

by caaqil 6mo ago

It's currently #1 on the front page too. HN drowning in AI slop, what a sight to behold.

sieabahlpark 6mo ago

[dead]

Esophagus4 6mo ago

It seems like there are a few stories HN will really bite on: - age verification - chat control - RTO vs. remote work - AI bubble - ditching American tech

armchairhacker 6mo ago

I support a rule to ban AI-generated/edited posts. Initially I thought they'd be fine, because AI-generated isn't intrinsically an issue and the comments can be good. But in practice, the AI posts tend to be slop, and usually there's a better human-written source for the same topic (for example, one of the many other recent "age verification is mass surveillance" posts here).

shevy-java 6mo ago
It is not so easy to distinguish this with 100% accuracy though. For instance, a recent example from yesterday: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21982 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21982 Part of this was written by AI, but with a human in "charge" who explained which part of AI was used here. Would that also be a bannable example for you? I am not so convinced that this is bannable per se. Perhaps it may be different if the AI-slop was not announced, but when it was announced and explained? > one of the many other recent "age verification is mass surveillance" > posts here Well, it actually is. It taps very much into other similar laws e. g. "chat control", aka chat sniffing.
- armchairhacker 6mo ago
  I should've said "guideline". I think posts can include AI if it's reasonable and/or they're good, while the guideline gives a reason to flag AI posts that are generally bad. > It taps very much into other similar laws e. g. "chat control", aka chat sniffing. There are many recent Chat Control posts here too. I agree Chat Control is bad, and poorly-implemented age verification is bad (though it can be implemented in privacy-preserving ways, albeit ineffectively; I commented about this 42 days ago at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47123507 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47123507, and it was stale then). I don't want to hear anymore about it. Maybe I need a filter myself, for the lucky 10,000. But the problem even for them, is that the repeated posts (without links to previous posts) have mostly low-effort comments, because people who made high-effort comments can't/won't keep repeating them.

strgrd 6mo ago

The vast majority of HN commentors react to the headline and don't bother to click through.