Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by chii 137 days ago
> where a person can always claim that "Oh, but that was not really what I meant"

that already happens today - they claim autocorrect or spell checks instead of ai previously.

I don't accept these as excuses as valid (even if it was real). It does not give them a valid out to change their mind regardless of the source of the text.
2 comments
Mordisquitos 136 days ago
Arguably, excusing oneself because of autocorrect is comparable to the classic "Dictated but not read" [0] disclaimer of old. Excusing oneself because an LLM wrote what was ostensibly your own text is more akin to confessing that your assistant wrote the whole thing and you tried to pass it off as your own without even bothering to read it.

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

link
pveierland 137 days ago
Yep! However the problem will increase by many orders of magnitude as the volume of generated content far surpasses the content created by autocorrect mechanisms, in addition to autocorrect being a far more local modification that does not generate entire paragraphs or segments of content, making it harder to excuse large changes in meaning.

I agree that they make for poor excuses - but as generative content seeps into everything I fear it will become more commonly invoked.

link
chii 137 days ago
> I fear it will become more commonly invoked.

yep, but invoking it doesnt force you to accept it. The only thing you get to control is your own personal choices. That's why i am telling you not to accept it, and i hope that people reading this will consider this their default stance.

link