[NiloCK]

This is the top reply on a substantial percentage of HN posts now and we should discourage it.

It is:

- sneering

- a shallow dismissal (please address the content)

- curmudgeonly

- a tangential annoyance

All things explicitly discouraged in the site guidelines. [1]

Downvoting is the tool for items that you think don't belong on the front page. We don't need the same comment on every single article.

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[timdiggerm]

It's not a shallow dismissal; it's a dismissal for good reason. It's tangential to the topic, but not to HN overall. It's only curmudgeonly if you assume AI-written posts are the inevitable and good future (aka begging the question). I really don't know how it's "sneering", so I won't address that.

[NetMageSCW]

It’s a dismissal with no evidence i.e. it’s a witch hunt. And no one should support that.

[s08148692]

The fact that the whole thread has basically devolved into debates over if it is or isn't an LLM written article is proving well enough that it doesn't really matter one way or another

[signatoremo]

It is a witch hunt with no evidence whatsoever, all based on intuition. It is distraction from the main topic, a topic that enough people find interesting to stay on the top page. What was intellectually interesting has now become a bore fest of repeated back and forth. That’s disrespectful and inconsiderate. Write a new post about why do you think AI writing is dangerous. I don’t mind that. I’d upvote it.

[bakugo]

The site guidelines were written pre-AI and stop making sense when you add AI-generated content into the equation.

Consider that by submitting AI generated content for humans to read, the statement you're making is "I did not consider this worth my time to write, but I believe it's worth your time to read, because your time is worth less than mine". It's an inherently arrogant and unbalanced exchange.

[NiloCK]

> The site guidelines were written pre-AI and stop making sense when you add AI-generated content into the equation.

Note: the guidelines are a living document that contain references to current AI tools.

> Consider that by submitting AI generated content for humans to read, the statement you're making is "I did not consider this worth my time to write, but I believe it's worth your time to read, because your time is worth less than mine". It's an inherently arrogant and unbalanced exchange.

This is something worth saying about a pure slop content. But the "charge" against the current item is that a reader encountered a feeling that an LLM was involved in the production of interesting content.

With enough eyeballs, all prose contains LLM tells.

We don't need to be told every time someone's personal AI detection algorithm flags. It's a cookie-banner comment: no new information for the reader, but a frustratingly predictable obstacle to scroll through.

[bakugo]

We wouldn't need any personal AI detection algorithm flags if the authors simply stated up front that their content is AI generated.

But they won't do that, because deep down they feel shameful about it (as they should).

[masklinn]

> Downvoting is the tool for items that you think don't belong on the front page.

You can’t downvote submissions. That’s literally not a feature of the site. You can only flag submissions, if you have more that 31 karma.

[ezfe]

And flagging is appropriate when you think content is not authentic

[NiloCK]

Twelve year old account and who knows how much lurking before that and I've never noticed this. Good lord.

Optimistically, I guess I can call myself some sort of live-and-let-live person.

[josephg]

The guidelines you linked says this:

> Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans.

The same principle applies to submissions. If you couldn't be bothered to write it, don't ask me to read it. HN is for humans.

[monooso]

No idea why you're being downvoted. I've done my bit to redress the balance, I hope others do the same.