[flagged]
It signals that instead of contributing your own thoughts, you’ve outsourced your opinion to an AI. In serious discussions, it can undermine your credibility, especially if the topic requires critical thinking, personal insight, or expertise. People might dismiss it outright with a “So what? That’s just what an AI generated.”
It can also feel like a cop-out, especially in academic, professional, or nuanced debates where showing your reasoning matters. Relying on ChatGPT as a crutch might make you seem disengaged or unwilling to do the work of forming your own view.
In short: pasting “Here’s what ChatGPT says…” can make your comment look generic, weak, and uninspired—and in some circles, it’s almost a conversation killer.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I’ll save you a click:
generated comments are against HN guidelines.
But, got it, ycombinator doesn't like any form of LLM quoting, and it would've been better if I just skipped the GPT quote.
(I do believe this stance is a bit too strict since LLMs *do* provide useful information sometimes, and I wasn't just mindlessly posting a ChatGPT hallucination, but a text fragment that I vetted beforehand/ that made complete sense to me and led me to what proved to be an ultimately true insight; that said, I respect that this is the ycombinator stance and I won't do it again - you will see it's the only time I did that, if you look in my comment history)
I obviously meant the latter - that the comment should've been skipped (i.e. not included) the GPT-generated quote; it was a useful quote for me but I see how other people may consider it useless & annoying.
I think it's just a choice that the mods have made to not allow generated posts or bots etc. I think useless and annoying posts are also against the guidelines, but they are separated issues. I think your heart is in the right place, just use your own words.
IMO it's all unsustainable. Users will not pay enough transaction fees to match the current block reward, and while mining will continue, if more than 50% of mining power becomes unused, a bad actor can buy it up and anyone with more than 50% of mining power has the ability to completely destroy the network. Tail emission is a better model.
Seems that if nothing changes, mining may become uneconomical as soon as 2028. If that's the case I'm kinda' shocked that there's no panic among BTC holders.