Hacker News Reader

According to you it’s all false. I don’t agree, and it certainly shouldn’t just be taken as a given.

For instance, I would want any AI generated video showing real people to have a disclaimer. Same way we have disclaimers when tv ads note if the people are actors or not with testimonials and the like. That is not only not false, but is actually a useful signal that helps present overly deceptive practices.

View on HN

I don't see what the "deceptive practices" would be though - you can just look at the code being submitted, there isn't really the same background truth involved as with "did the thing in this video actually happen?" "do these commercial people actually think this?"

If I have a block of human code and an identical block of llm code then whats the difference? Especially given that in reality it is trivial to obfuscate whether its human or LLM (in fact usually you have to go out of your way to identify it as such).

I am an AI hater but I'm just being realistic and practical here, I'm not sure how else to approach all this.

It tells you what average quality to expect, and to look out for beginner-level mistakes and straight up lying accompanied with fine bits of code. Not sure why you wouldn't want that context.

I’m not an AI hater and I still think it should be disclosed. That’s how it should be approached.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com