Comment by DonHopkins | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DonHopkins | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

What do you mean by garbage? Is it incorrect in any way? As I stated, I used ChatGPT because I tried and failed to find the original sources. I checked all the information myself, and searched google groups and the wayback machine for the original sources, and linked to what I could find (like the suck.com Net.Mogul cards), but I don't have all the usenet and email archives any more.

Can you please constructively suggest some better citations that have the same information instead of just complaining? Or should I just leave out all that relevant information, even though I checked ChatGPT's results against what I know from being there at the time? Or would you rather I just not disclose that I used ChatGPT to write the comment, so as not to trigger you?

Edit: Gumby: then that's what he should have said. But I'm responding to what he did actually say. Were all the facts correct, according to your memory? And can you cite a better source with the same information? I'd be grateful and glad to rewrite the comment to point to that, then.

Don, I’m guessing the complaint is really that sure, your comment is a piece of Usenet history, but not really germane to the post.

Posting AI generated info-dumps is considered bad netiquette.

We’ll see for how long I guess

So was distributing commercial software over the Internet, which was my point. And I got flamed for that, too. ;)

I at least tried to find original sources first, included the ones I did find, fact checked and edited ChatGPT's output, and disclosed its use. What more do you want, that information to be lost, or people not to disclose ChatGPT's use to avoid being flamed for violating netiquette? Is it prohibited by HN guidelines? Should it be?

Is posting working code partially written by ChatGPT that solves a problem and has been checked and tested also a violation of netiquette? Where is the line? Or does it move over time?

Sounds like an interesting topic for an HN discussion to me...

Sounds like an interesting topic for an HN discussion to me...

It's a mostly settled topic for now, you can find many moderation comments about it - don't use generated content in comments. The problem is that the overwhelming majority of LLM generated comments are not checked for accuracy, they're just random summaries of articles or unverified pastes of whatever the model spat out in response to a prompt. Even though you're trying to do this 'right' - checking and/or editing the output, disclosing the LLM use for the relevant part of the comment, etc - it's too difficult for anyone to tell the difference.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com