[electroly]

This OP hasn't done any of those things. They are here discussing the project, and it's clear all of their replies are human-written. The AI use is stated up front in the readme. They posted a 12 minute YouTube video demonstrating that the project works, with narration that indicates English is not their first language. The git commit messages are all classic short human messages. It's a genuinely neat project that obviously has no commercial motivation. Their crime appears to be using AI to clean up their non-native English in the README and then reusing some of that README text in the top-level descriptive comment on their Show HN post. Indeed, they should not have done that for their comment, but the rest of these accusations are just soapboxing about AI. You could have written this comment anywhere; it has nothing to do with this post.

[Aurornis]

> and it's clear all of their replies are human-written. The AI use is stated up front in the readme. The

Very much not the case with the comment I responded to.

There is a stark contrast between the AI written first comment and some of their other comments.

I know many here don’t like any accusations of AI writing because they aren’t as attuned to picking it up, but the comment I responded to was as blatant as it gets.

I tried to give a more friendly encouragement to share self-written comments.

[electroly]

Yes, I'm obviously aware of that. We're all capable of seeing em dashes and staccato sentences. My reply mentions, explicitly, that their top-level comment was AI written (reusing portions of their AI-written readme) and that their replies are human written. I chose my words carefully; HN itself uses the terminology "comment" for top-level messages and "reply" for sub-level messages, and I used the phrase "top-level" to further disambiguate it. I apologize if that was confusing but what I said was accurate and carefully considered. I further agreed that they should not have done that. That one comment seems to be their only crime here. You then took the opportunity to soapbox about a bunch of things that OP did not do, in the message that I replied to.

I don't have anything to add. It just seems like you misunderstood my message.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> HN itself uses the terminology "comment" for top-level messages and "reply" for sub-level messages

Does it? I can't see any distinction in https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html or https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html

Rereading your comment now with this in mind, I can make out the distinction, but I don't think you made it clearly.

[electroly]

The submit button in the post box says "add comment" vs. "reply" depending on what kind of message you're posting, and the link under comments says "reply" while articles don't have that link. I called it the "top-level descriptive comment on their Show HN post" because I agree just "comment" vs. "reply" alone could be confusing. What's a better way to describe the comment that an author posts with their Show HN to begin the discussion vs. replies that are made in response to specific comments? I genuinely don't know how many more terms I could have loaded onto that phrase to make it clear which post I was talking about. That wasn't supposed to be a confusing part of my post.