[flagged]
We don't want LLM-generated content on HN, but we also don't want a substantial portion of any thread being devoted to meta-discussion about whether a post is LLM-generated, and the merits of discussing whether a post is LLM-generated, etc. This all belongs in the generic tangent category that we're explicitly trying to avoid here.
If you suspect it, please use the the established approaches for reacting to inappropriate content: if it's bad content for HN, flag it; if it's a bad comment downvote it; and if there's evidence that it's LLM-generated, email us to point it out. We'll investigate it the same way we do when there are accusations of shilling etc, and we'll take the appropriate action. This way we can cut down on repetitive, generic tangents, and unfair accusations.
having a company name pitched at you within the first two sentences is a pretty good give away.
Is anyone disagreeing with that?
Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
I think it's fair to point out that many articles today are essentially a little bit of a human wrapper around a core of ChatGPT content.
Whether or not this was AI-generated, the tells of AI-written text are all throughout it. There are some people who have learned to write like the AI talks to them, which is really not much of an improvement over just using the AI as your word processor.
The problem is that HN is one of the few places left where original thoughts are the main reason people are here. Letting LLMs write articles for us here is just not all that useful or fun.
Maybe quarantining AI related articles to their own thing a la Show HN would be a good move. I know it is the predominant topic here for the moment but like there is other interesting stuff too. And articles about AI written by AI so that Google’s AI can rank it higher and show it to more AI models to train on is just gross.
On the whole though, I still learned a lot.