[simon84]

While I second that, Im not convinced that the quality of the content is altered by use (or not) of AI.

A click-bait for brainless content will not stick long on the front page anyhow.

If legit contributors feel more comfortable with AI reviewing their posts, I think that is fair. And I'd rather read a structured post instead of fuzzy ideas.

[sibidharan]

What you think about attaching the chat transcript that lead to the final output when marking AI generated? it may be interesting to see how people will be feel a shame at how they generate slop vs genuinely using AI to come up with something. I see lot of VC applications follow this. But not sure how it will be applicable for HN.

Just need to bust low effort outputs!

[simon84]

I actually did this once, it was great, it actually added credibility somehow I think.

After an article, I told Claude that he can add its own note at the end as the "author" and he shall tell how I promptes him and then give a honest self-assessment.

You can check this post (regardless of the content, just check the P.S. section at the end)

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/aeonics-simon-uyttendaele-ozt...