[armchairhacker]

I support a rule to ban AI-generated/edited posts.

Initially I thought they'd be fine, because AI-generated isn't intrinsically an issue and the comments can be good. But in practice, the AI posts tend to be slop, and usually there's a better human-written source for the same topic (for example, one of the many other recent "age verification is mass surveillance" posts here).

[shevy-java]

It is not so easy to distinguish this with 100% accuracy though.

For instance, a recent example from yesterday:

https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21982

Part of this was written by AI, but with a human in "charge" who explained which part of AI was used here. Would that also be a bannable example for you? I am not so convinced that this is bannable per se. Perhaps it may be different if the AI-slop was not announced, but when it was announced and explained?

> one of the many other recent "age verification is mass surveillance" > posts here

Well, it actually is. It taps very much into other similar laws e. g. "chat control", aka chat sniffing.

[armchairhacker]

I should've said "guideline". I think posts can include AI if it's reasonable and/or they're good, while the guideline gives a reason to flag AI posts that are generally bad.

> It taps very much into other similar laws e. g. "chat control", aka chat sniffing.

There are many recent Chat Control posts here too. I agree Chat Control is bad, and poorly-implemented age verification is bad (though it can be implemented in privacy-preserving ways, albeit ineffectively; I commented about this 42 days ago at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47123507, and it was stale then). I don't want to hear anymore about it. Maybe I need a filter myself, for the lucky 10,000. But the problem even for them, is that the repeated posts (without links to previous posts) have mostly low-effort comments, because people who made high-effort comments can't/won't keep repeating them.