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
I disagree, I care. I believe if something is written by a human it has inherent value. This belief seems to be held by a minority of tech people unfortunately.

>>makewo+Nr1
What inherent value does this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33951443 have?

(It says "From the ChatGPT-generated stuff I've seen just in the last week, I think we're already there. Most humans these days are incredibly stupid.")

I have read low quality internet comments saying "people are dumb" over and over and over, year in, year out. I argue that wherever they are, they have no inherent positive value. And negative contribution to the internet, the world, the thread they are posted in.