[aspenmayer]

Labeling isn’t the problem. Generated comments are against HN guidelines.

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

> That said, I'd rather read GPT output than skim the meta-discussion that ruins so many HN threads. Totally stoked that we're now contributing to that rather than talking about the actual content.

You brought this meta-discussion on yourself and upon the rest of the community, knowing the likely result beforehand. It’s hard to say you’re not part of the problem you rail against when you create the initial start conditions for the thread.

[stephenhandley]

Honestly was not aware of that guideline. Insinuating that I was someone trolling for this discussion is a stretch.

[aspenmayer]

> Honestly was not aware of that guideline. Insinuating that I was someone trolling for this discussion is a stretch.

I’m not insinuating anything, quite the opposite. You have experience on the site, and so are aware of how often threads can devolve into and revolve around meta-discussions, and one of those common meta-discussions on HN is in response to generated comments and AI slop. I’m not saying you’re trolling by doing it intentionally, and in fact I’ve appealed to dang to add the provision to the guidelines proper myself in email and on HN. But surely we both agree that to continue to do so now that you know would be a flagrant violation of the guidelines?

> That said, I'd rather read GPT output than skim the meta-discussion that ruins so many HN threads.

I try to make the kinds of posts I want to read. Perhaps you might find this guiding precept helpful also, as I do. As generated comments are against the guidelines, your own words will suffice.