Hacker News Reader

Comment by meindnoch | Hacker News Reader

Here's what ChatGPT says about pasting comments copied from ChatGPT:

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.

View on HN

Yeah I dislike it when people just paste chatgpt outputs. If you use ChatGPT, you should (imo) use it to _help_ you write your own response - it's output is similar to a Google search, and you use that info to edit your own response

I wasn't using it to prove a point, I was shocked at what it said and trying to find out where it is wrong. But yeah, point taken, my comment's formulation was unfortunate and a bit lazy.

Here’s what dang says about generated comments on HN:

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

I’ll save you a click:

generated comments are against HN guidelines.

From my perspective it wasn't a generated comment - the meat of it (though not the most characters typed) was about my realization that BTC has maybe/probably one decade of trading left in it. Kinda' how meindnoch's reply to my message, despite being mostly a ChatGPT comment, was actually not about what ChatGPT said.

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)

If you post good info, the source is immaterial. If you post bad info, people want to know what led you to post bad, because we assume good intent and good judgment, and so your info must be bad. Generated comments are against HN guidelines even if you don’t disclose that they are generated; this should be obvious, but I thought it needed to be said since you mentioned that you ought to have posted the generated output anyway and simply not disclosed the source. HN isn’t for that. If I have misread your comment, and you meant that you shouldn’t have included the generated part, then there would have been no issue originally, and in which case I agree.

> would've been better if I just skipped the GPT quote.

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 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com