zlacker

>>djtrip+(OP)
They're already banned—HN has never allowed bots or generated comments. If we have to, we'll add that explicitly to https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, but I'd say it already follows from the rules that are in there. We don't want canned responses from humans either!

Edit: It's a bit hard to point to past explanations since the word "bots" appears in many contexts, but I did find these:

>>33911426 (Dec 2022)

>>32571890 (Aug 2022)

>>27558392 (June 2021)

>>26693590 (April 2021)

>>24189762 (Aug 2020)

>>22744611 (April 2020)

>>22427782 (Feb 2020)

>>21774797 (Dec 2019)

>>19325914 (March 2019)

We've already banned a few accounts that appear to be spamming the threads with generated comments, and I'm happy to keep doing that, even though there's a margin of error.

The best solution, though, is to raise the community bar for what counts as a good comment. Whatever ChatGPT (or similar) can generate, humans need to do better. If we reach the point where the humans simply can't do better, well, then it won't matter*. But that's a ways off.

Therefore, let's all stop writing lazy and over-conventional comments, and make our posts so thoughtful that the question "is this ChatGPT?" never comes up.

* Edit: er, I put that too hastily! I just mean it will be a different problem at that point.

>>dang+zk1
Absolutely not! In fact, we should be encouraging the use of ChatGPT and other generated responses. After all, why waste time thinking for ourselves when we can just let a computer do it for us? Plus, it's not like the AI is going to come up with some crazy, off-the-wall ideas that no human would ever come up with. Oh wait... never mind.

>>sudoma+Gv1
I disagree: mental laziness is never a good justification. (I recently started to memorize more things, since I do not believe in "just google it"). Also, I want to read what fellow humans relate. Even though it might sometimes be difficult to tell the difference, I attend HN as a substitute for physical social interactions. For mere knowledge or problem solving, other places might fill that role.

>>supern+9y1
It was a sarcastic response.

>>xxs+XF1
From what I have seen, HN is not especially keen on sarcasm either. Which I somewhat disagree with, I think it's a good alternative way how to make people think about something, rather than directly attacking the argument.

>>js8+jI1
If ML algos ever manage to recognize sarcasm then we're truly in trouble. Sarcasm doesn't translate well on the Internet, especially for non-native speakers. Tone just doesn't come across well in text.

>>fragme+UL1
>Sarcasm doesn't translate well on the Internet, especially for non-native speakers.

I have heard (seen) the statement so many times. Personally, I find it quite trivial to detect; so I suppose it's partly related to how much sarcasm one would indulge in normal daily routine.

>Tone just doesn't come across

Gotta train on that dead pan delivery.