zlacker

>>djtrip+(OP)
Seems like a non problem. If it's a dull comment or just inane it'll get downvoted out of existence. If the bot actually produces something interesting about the topic, what's the problem?

>>bragr+C4
The biggest issue is GPT is often confidently incorrect about things but is good enough to sound confident/authoritative so if people got into the habit of using it the signal to noise ratio would degrade.

>>rtkwe+sm1
Doesn't sound all that different from human comments, to be honest

>>romanh+6o1
Human incorrect comments are at least written by people and if the person isn't actually knowledgeable about a subject it's likely to show more in the response than it does in gpt which can mimic all the right forms to appear smarter/more correct. Beyond anything else though at least when it's a person writing the wrong answer they spent the time to write it vs the copy paste it automation of using chatgpt. That little bit of effort is a speed bump well worth having since at the very least getting tons of people to spam confidently incorrect things is more work than having a dozen instances of a bot do the same a hundred times faster.

>>rtkwe+zv1
I have seen firsthand the effect of wrong comments (I have written them) being upvoted more than the correcting responses that came afterwards. So yeah, it can happen with humans too, on occasion.

>>js8+3J1
Sure and there's no real way around that other than community norms to downvote/whatever corrected replies and upvoting the correction. HN makes that a bit hard by locking voting away from so many people but I think it works better than open voting probably.