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
I agree. ChatGPT has made me realise the gulf between “short form essay” school writing and the professionals.

Here’s an example article that begins with the cliched GPT-generated intro, and then switches up into crafted prose:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/12/chatg...

>>random+0M1
I agree with the under current what chatGPT does well is making a good first draft of a text which is intended to be mostly neutral.

It is to communication what calculators are to mathematics.

>>psychp+AS1
Calculators are always correct.

>>random+X84
I don't think you even really believe that yourself.

https://youtu.be/7LKy3lrkTRA

>>psychp+TM7
The goal of HN is not “win argument” but curious debate. You know what I meant.

>>random+l28
What was "curious debate" about your terse and wholly incorrect quip?

For the purposes of my education and socialisation to HN.

>>psychp+8l8
Previous poster said that GPT is to writing what calculators are to math. That's an interesting point, is this an analogy we can reason with?

My terse response was "no, because calculators are correct all the time whereas GPT is incorrect a lot of time". So, that reasoning can't be used. Need a different one.

So we conclude, no that's not a good analogy.

>>random+sK9
So you're ignoring proof that calculators aren't correct all the time(infact given most numbers are irrational calculators are always mostly wrong and imprecise). And stating your incorrect view as fact.

That's what you mean by curious debate? Bizarre!

P.s. this is why it's a good analogy you've learnt something about calculators from thinking about the analogy as well as chatGPT

>>psychp+v1a
The existence of irrational numbers is in no way analogous to saying “the king of England is George V” and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

My general approach to discussion is to assume the most generous interpretation of a post.

>>random+Dod
Just seems like you're ignoring that calculators are only very rarely correct.

But you do you.