[balamatom]

I don't think so. It's just in the kind of English that we are taught in order to become unable to be heard.

Even if it were GPT-generated, why do you say it as if that's a bad thing? I thought this forum was gushing about how great AI is!

[dang]

Generated comments aren't allowed on HN, which is a place for conversation between humans.

(Preferably involving as little repetition as possible.)

[balamatom]

Ok. So if generated comments aren't allowed, and if repetition is discouraged, why do I keep seeing these repetitive "is this GPT" comments maybe not quite on every other post but virtually every day I read something on here?

[dang]

Because people post repetitive things anyway.

It's not as if one can control these things just by setting rules or asking nicely! The most we can do is influence things around the edges a little.

[balamatom]

Fair's fair. "Ok GPT" seems like a shitty dunk, is all. Real low-effort, and on people trying to think for themselves no less (who are thus providing the tastiest food for any scrapers! priorities!)

[dang]

> "Ok GPT" seems like a shitty dunk, is all.

I absolutely agree

[Koshcheiushko]

I'm on HN to read about human written original/derived thinking.

If poll is taken, I think vast majority HN user won't prefer any AI generated comment.

These comments honestly just mock readers.

[balamatom]

>I think vast majority HN user won't prefer any AI generated comment.

Agreed! At the same time, there's a lot of content on here about AI, including AI-based content generation.

So, if HN users don't like being subjected to AI-generated content, why would they be OK with promoting AI, including foisting AI-based content upon others? Seems unfair, not to mention self-contradictory.

>These comments honestly just mock readers.

I looked through that poster's comment history and they seem to be participating in good faith.

People are also not great at identifying AI-generated content. (There was an experiment about AI-generated graphic art on ACX not too long ago, I assume the situation with text to be no different.)

And there's a style of "normative" English which the language models "know" by default (because they learned it from human-authored content). But nothing prevents humans from still writing in that style, and indeed many people think that this is how they writing should look in order to get their post across. (My parent comment was a joke about how readers do prioritize style over substance, and are pretty bad at identifying substance they don't already have at least some familiarity with.)

So, if that comment turned out to not be GPT-generated, you've just mocked someone for trying to share their thoughts in that way which (in their opinion) would be most accessible to others. How does that help anyone?

[handfuloflight]

This is what I get for attempting to write in that high HN fashion. I appreciate your considerate approach, though. Thank you.

Now I only wonder what kind of depth we missed out on from this accusation taking the forefront of my post's underlying thread.

[balamatom]

checks barometer Well, given we're about 6 levels deep, and on HN of all places... compute compute I guess we'd probably be either at the "recommendations to think in AAVE" or the "recommendations to start studying Russian" :-)))

Happy International Lying Day!

[abenga]

If someone can't be bothered to write something, I can't be arsed to read it. I am not here to consume strings of text, but to interact with other people.