Hacker News Reader

Comment by lolinder | Hacker News Reader

Oof. This comment originally had an introduction attributing the summary to Claude and immediately got downvoted to oblivion. Now it's been edited to remove the attribution and it's resurrected (edit: gone again, so ignore me).

Unintended perverse incentives...

View on HN

I’ve begged dang to specifically say that generated comments are against HN guidelines in the guidelines themselves, but as it stands, it’s still against guidelines, but only communicated in comments. I warned about the perverse incentives as well. It’s a pretty subpar status quo.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42224783

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

I was not aware of the policy. My intent was to save people having to read the many pages when they just want a summary of the facts (and I don’t think most people necessarily have a quick way to summarize so it seemed like it would be useful - in fact there’s another person who I guess innocently posted a similar summary..). I also agree it would be useful for this to be an explicit policy. Anyway, now I know…

FWIW, I (a human) read the order and this is a pretty accurate summary.

I did as well and yes, it's fine. This is just a meta comment about what we're accidentally training people to do, not a critique of OP.

Why is this relevant? Who want's "summaries" in the comments? We can all copy and paste ourselves, so spamming this nonsense is useless.

Even without the attribution, it was still pretty clear to me that it was a chatbot-generated summary. No human who understands how the legal procedure works would introduce the summary in that way, as the court order is the preliminary injunction.

Even without the attribution, generated comments are against HN guidelines.

It still surprises me that people can't immediately spot that comments like that are slop.

I don't know why it still surprises me, given the frequency at which it happens, but still.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com