Hacker News Reader

Comment by WhereIsTheTruth | Hacker News Reader

> Thanks to ChatGPT for valuable feedback and editorial input on early drafts of this post. It was a joy collaborating with it. It provided consistent and helpful feedback, and was always available to assist with any changes or questions I had during the collaboration process2.

That kind of things will for sure go into my domain's blacklist

View on HN

It'll be interesting to see how this attitude holds up over time. I think using (and acknowledging using) AI tools will become normalized, much like mobile phone use has been. I remember a time (less than twenty years ago) when I was going to dinner with friends and one of them made (at the time) the huge social faux-pas of accepting a call at the table. People seriously complained about it. Now that's normal behavior.

It's still rude. I'll accept the quick spouse/so update, the actual emergency or the "hey I might have to talk to x" but that's about it. If you're there to hang out and talk then do that. If you're just going to fuck with your phone the whole time you might as well not be there.

I'll also accept phone use as a furtherance of the discussion, eg pulling up details, addresses, info, memes to share, etc, but that still all focuses back on us being there together, not you being there in name only.

Not normal when I go out to eat. What kind of people think its socially acceptable to accept a phone call unless its an emergency?

If it might be important I don't mind if people answer and make it brief, like figure out quickly if it's urgent and do the "hey i'm at a restaurant, I'll call you back later" thing. I'm fine with waiting a minute if that saves someone a ton of hassle afterwards.

How do you know it is an emergency if you don’t accept it?

Answering a call at the table is absolutely not normal behaviour.

what about drinking from the finger bowl, is that okay?

I would have preferred disclosure at the top, however, for me, it was a good read and the whiff of AI's hand in this was barely noticeable, I enjoyed the content.

I had presumed that, in combination with the footnote ("It asked me to include this..."), it was a joke, albeit one that will date rapidly.

How is that substantially different than using grammarly or a spell checker?

Both are tools, they are substantially different.. they serve different purpose..

"I did some research (..), according to the source (..), we know (..), X (..) found out that (..)"

Is different than laying out the knowledge and pretend it was a collaboration between the author and the tool

"the tool", notice the tone, and the personification of the tool by the author, devaluates the people who contributed to the source of the knowledge and everything in-between

I'm not a fan of these "AI generative" tools, not everything is dark tho, i can appreciate how Bing chat always annotate the source of each data it spits; it's a step in the right direction, but I'm afraid this won't be enough to avoid our descent into biased assisted collective intelligence.. perhaps it's over-reaction, perhaps it's the way to go, perhaps it's similar to pre/post electricity, we'll see, but we should be careful, notice I only talk for myself, I have no problem with people using these tools, as long as they disclose it, wich the author did, so I should at least respect that!

Not very different. This actually gives me similar vibes to if author was thanking Grammarly at the end of the post. Immediately think it's paid for by Grammarly or at least question author's intent. It's an ad for a closed commercial product.

Why? That's the best way you can use these things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com