zlacker

>>djtrip+(OP)
This debate reminds me a lot of early-Quora moderation discussions over anonymous users. People wanted to mass-ban any answers from "anonymous" because they weren't from "real people". I argued that, in a public forum, questions/answers should be judged on their content, rather than "who" wrote them. People disagreed. Anonymous functionality on Quora has since been gutted.

AI-generated content seems similar. If a comment is good, who cares whether it was written by Alice, Bob, or an AI? ChatGPT has already proven it can write better answers to some queries than most humans do; I'd rather read the better-quality answer, no matter who wrote it. I'm on HN for the comments, not the people.

>>drusep+Dq1
Anonymous and AI are very different (at least currently).

Take the following statement: "The CEO of ACME Co is abusive and you should avoid him at all costs. Do not work there."

If it's an anonymous poster on Quora, that's a (potentially) valuable response and a good reason for that person to stay anonymous. But if it's AI, it can't possibly reflect any actual first-hand experience. At best it's a regurgitation of something out there already and at worst is a AI hallucination based on a mishmash of fact and fiction.

>>gkober+4s1
There’s no reason to trust said anonymous comment on Quora.

>>andsoi+8t1
Agreed, that's why I said potentially. I completely understand why a platform might want to ban anonymous comments, and I also understand why it might welcome them. Both come with risks and rewards.

(Same for for AI, btw. Some places will embrace it and some places will ban it, and both will have their valid reasons.)