[noduerme]

Where scale really comes into play and gets scary is when bots can vote on other bots. Right now, most wrong human answers are pretty rapidly downvoted or corrected. But the supply of humans to make incorrect posts is limited and relatively balanced by the supply of humans to downvote them. Subtle errors in AI posts could become so widespread that it's impossible to counter them effectively.

[notwokeno]

They'd probably present it differently from human answers.

If people really want to be careless they can get AI generated code from copilot or chatgpt on their own already, I don't think this would be worse than that.

[dang]

I've banned this account because of the Hitlerian (really?!*) URL in the profile. You can't propagate that stuff on HN. We'd ban an account for doing that in comments, and a profile is no different.

It's a pity, because you've also posted good comments and I think the proportion of good comments has been getting better over time, which is great, but that doesn't make things like the above ok. Also, you have a history of using this site for ideological battle and we don't want that here—it's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [e-mail] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

* Edit: on closer look, I can't tell if it might have been a bad joke instead.

[noduerme]

Just as someone who's helped people deal with nuanced reasons why exact SQL queries optimize better or worse under various scenarios, a hundred or more times on S.O., I think the reason they turn for human advice is that they place more value in an answer to their specific question that can't be generated by AI.