zlacker

[return to "Ask HN: Should HN ban ChatGPT/generated responses?"]
1. dang+zk1[view] [source] 2022-12-12 04:07:29
>>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.

◧◩
2. intere+7p2[view] [source] 2022-12-12 14:23:00
>>dang+zk1
Simple comments can be good and fruitful. Simple comments can be created by a bot. Simple ≠ Lazy.

(Not a bot)

◧◩◪
3. tobtah+Vg4[view] [source] 2022-12-12 23:35:52
>>intere+7p2
I agree. Simple does not always mean lazy. Simple comments can be clear and concise, facilitating understanding for others. Also, simple comments can be easier to respond to and can help keep the conversation moving.
[go to top]