[neitherboosh]

Hm, this comment makes me realize that there isn’t really a social consensus on whether or not AI generated content is welcome in these kinds of discussions. On one hand, I’m generally annoyed any time I see unsolicited AI generations because it’s usually garbage and I could have just asked an AI myself. But in this case I probably wasn’t going to and this comment is genuinely insightful…

I guess I would have preferred some kind of qualifier at the beginning saying it’s not written by a human

[julienchastang]

I also agree that this comment is likely AI generated (i.e., "why this matters" gave it away for me. I think I've seen this phrase a lot with ChatGPT). I think it is the last part of the last sentence and the toeing of the party line that bugs me, "likely aimed at improving security screening and preventing abuse of the system". It's "Manufacturing Consent"[0] à la 21st Century.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

[linotype]

Again, please point out what’s wrong in the post and I will correct it.

[julienchastang]

"likely aimed at improving security screening and preventing abuse of the system"

This is an opinion. Is it yours, or the AI's? Moreover, is the AI just trying to be agreeable or is this coming from a platform that has a political agenda, in this case supporting the political actors that are in charge of this visa change? These are the questions that we need to ask ourselves in these modern times.

[CamperBob2]

As jeffbee says, most HN users are perfectly capable of using ChatGPT as well.

[umvi]

Yeah kind of like how people put "IANAL but ..." before offering legal advice. Maybe we need a new acronym: "AIG but ..." (AI generated but ...) or maybe "NEWAI but ..." (Non-expert wielding AI but...)

[linotype]

Can you point out what part of the summary is wrong? You’re welcome to write your own summary that’s as detailed as the one I posted with any necessary corrections and I’ll delete my post.

[shaldengeki]

HN's moderation team has been pretty clear that generated comments aren't welcome here. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

[linotype]

They’re free to delete it. I think it adds value.

[tomhow]

We don't delete things that users have posted (unless they specifically ask us to).

It's long been a norm on HN that summary/tl;dr comments are not welcome. We want people's comments to be in response to the full article, not the summary. Sometimes a summary will be an inaccurate representation of the article, and when users base their response on the summary (without reading the article), it poisons the comments thread.

You weren't to know as it's not explicitly stated in the guidelines, but it is one of the norms that the moderation team and community has converged on over many years.

[neitherboosh]

I actually don’t think the summary is bad and I do think the comment is helpful and am glad to have read it; I just would have preferred to know it was AI before I started reading.

[jeffbee]

> isn’t really a social consensus

I feel the consensus is clear. Reposting blurbs from robots is anathematic to our discourse.

[baggy_trough]

Be careful not to define consensus by whatever you think is a good idea.

[linotype]

Your comment adds way less value than the one I generated, reviewed and posted. I refuse to be bullied by people that are anti-AI.

[jeffbee]

Your comment added nothing, because anyone can get ChatGPT to generate that exact comment.

[linotype]

It was convenience so dozens or hundreds of people didn’t have to. Seriously regret trying to be helpful here.

[baggy_trough]

Now we don't have to.