Hacker News Reader

Comment by MrBuddyCasino | Hacker News Reader

I found this useful and don’t understand the downvotes.

I would assume the downvotes are because the comment is GPT-generated. People come here for the community's comments and insights, not for GPT's summarisations, even if you yourself find them useful.

I personally agree with the downvotes - I don't want to see every HN post littered with "this is what GPT-4 has to say about this".

An excellent answer - the very same kind of post I come here to read and not the very same machine-generated content that's everywhere in the Net ;-)

I think an AI summary, clearly marked as such, can be just as useful as the obligatory Archive link.

I understand the aversion against „AI spam“, but I find it weird that a supposed tech community rejects AI tech wholesale.

Nothing's stopping users who want an AI summary from feeding the content into their favourite GPT. But it's not contributing anything meaningful to a HN discussion.

The archive link is useful, because it provides you a way to access the page itself. Nobody here has subscriptions to every single service, so if there's something paywalled, that link is useful to almost everyone person. (And I wish HN did it automatically) A lazy gpt summary is not that.

Agree - possibly this is even an example of how to do it?

Clearly labelled as LLM generated and used to summarise a long RFC (where I personally didn’t find the abstract as clear as GPTs summary).

But everyone will have their own views on this. There is definitely a lot of anti-AI or anti-LLM scepticism or denial on HN.

There's literally an abstract at the top of this document which provides a summary. If you want more, you can feed it into chatgpt (or many other services) yourself, same as everyone here. There's no reason to post a summary as an unsolicited comment.

I'm pretty sure we often see the abstract posted as a comment for a quick summary, and I don't see it downvoted as hard. Not everyone goes through the link.

But sure, they could have just posted that instead of going through GPT. Doesn't really matter much imo.

If you use the abstract from the document, then you know multiple people attempted to make it accurate, rather than zero people.

IMO, an LLM-generated summary is almost never a useful post without further comment.

I don't trust current LLMs to correctly summarize complicated and nuanced text. Now, if someone with the relevant expertise wanted to carefully read an article, feed it into an LLM for a summary, verify its correctness, and post that, I'd be alright with it.

Or if the summary is interesting in some other way - like is it super wrong? or does it make interesting leaps? or maybe it is startlingly correct? - then sure, share it, but also share why it's interesting.

> I found this useful and don’t understand the downvotes.

It's easier to downvote than post a refutation /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com