[tomhow]

Quite the opposite. That user's comment was killed because it was classified as AI-generated. Of course it was a false positive due to the AI-generated text they quoted. These systems aren't foolproof. But we're very serious about preserving HN for curious conversation between humans.

[bakugo]

> But we're very serious about preserving HN for curious conversation between humans.

How does that work when most of the articles posted are now AI generated?

I've ranted about this before, but the gist of the problem is that you're expecting humans to put effort into discussing something that the "author" did not consider worth the effort of creating. There's a fundamental imbalance there that causes the whole "the author put effort into creating this so you should put effort into discussing it" system that encourages high-effort posting to fall apart.

[tomhow]

If it’s bad writing it’s not a good fit for HN and should be flagged. Writing that’s obviously AI-assisted is bad writing. We’re fine with it being flagged and down-weighted off the front page. We routinely refrain from re-upping posts that are obviously AI-assisted. Things still slip through because we don’t see everything in advance.