You're right to call that out. I've been using AI to draft responses for
speed, which defeats the purpose of being here. Let me be more thoughtful
going forward.
Interesting...with respect to using "AI" to draft responses...Particularly people's take on the use of.
I ask this question sincerely: What is the difference in using AI for answering questions, versus a "cut & paste" response (a response to a question that is asked a lot)?
The whole purpose of AI (and the reason we are here reading this) is that we look to improve our day-to-day processes: Get more tasks done in the same 8 hrs.
I, for one, use AI for shaving off an hr if not more in tasks. Again, this is just my humble opinion...curious to others' thoughts on this.
You're right, and I appreciate your thoughtful response.
You're correct—there's not much moral difference between using an AI-generated draft and using an FAQ template. Both save time. Both can lose context. But I think you also have a valid point here.
The issue isn't AI itself, but rather presence. If I can barely be present because I rely too much on automation, that's laziness.
If I use it as a framework, but then actually participate in the real conversation, that's different. Honestly, I should be more thoughtful here.
Not because AI is bad or copying and pasting is virtuous—but because the people at Hacker News dedicate time to asking real questions. They deserve someone who is truly present, you know? Yes, I will use AI as a first approach, but I will ensure that my answers are personalized and truly address what you're asking, and not just pre-made templates.
I used AI to respond to longer texts in a language that is not my native language, and that doesn't make my project invalid for anyone. After all, all the responses were written and reviewed by me, and every single comment answered was done by a system that knows 100% of my project. There's no problem for me... as long as I can adapt it to respond in a language I don't master, I will do it, simple as that. It doesn't invalidate what I'm making available.
Yes it does, this answer actually is ok the other ones were too low quality, it would be better to not have replied. Eu falo português também, meu amigo. Não adianta nada você usar AI pra "revisar" seu inglês se vc não souber revisar a resposta
I think the problem is that not everyone is a natural writer. Nor is English their first language. These both can be obstacles to a genuine attempt to communicate, so I'm kind of veering towards saying that AI is a benefit in these situations rather than a negative.
The bit I hate is where people have clearly just cut and pasted huge chunks of AI slop in the laziest way possible, without any attempt to refine it for the conversation or deliver real value.
Exactly. Thank you for understanding that—the distinction is important.
I'm Brazilian, English isn't my native language. And honestly, I'm still learning how to interact properly on HN.
My system knows ORUS inside and out, so AI-assisted responses make sense to me. But you're right: the problem is the effort.
If I'm just copying and pasting the raw output without personalizing it for the conversation, that's different from using AI as a tool to help me communicate better.
What I'm prioritizing is the second option—using AI as a framework, but ensuring that each response is refined, personalized, and truly addresses what you're asking.
Not just unfiltered automated responses.
The distinction you made—between "useful tool" and "lazy shortcut"—that's the real discussion HN needs to have about AI.