|
|
|
|
|
|
by shevy-java
67 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
> 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.