zlacker

Putting aside the particular accusation that I have raised for a moment, I am curious to understand whether Hacker News (HN) has established any formal, informal, or otherwise broadly accepted community guidelines, rules, policies, or best practices regarding the usage of comments generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence, specifically through ChatGPT or similar AI-driven language models.

My inquiry is motivated by the observation that AI-generated text has become increasingly prevalent in online discourse, and different platforms have adopted varying stances on whether such content is acceptable, encouraged, discouraged, or outright prohibited. Some online communities prefer organic, human-generated discussions to preserve authenticity, while others are more permissive, provided that AI-generated responses align with the spirit and intent of meaningful discourse.

Thus, within the context of HN’s commenting system, does the platform have an explicit policy, a tacit expectation, or any historical precedent regarding whether AI-assisted comments are permissible? If so, are there any specific constraints, recommendations, or guiding principles that users should adhere to when leveraging AI for participation in discussions? Furthermore, if such a policy exists, is it officially documented within HN’s guidelines, or is it more of an unwritten cultural norm that has evolved over time through community moderation and feedback?

I would appreciate any insights on whether this matter has been formally addressed or discussed in past threads, as well as any pointers to relevant resources that shed light on HN’s stance regarding AI-assisted participation.

>>searea+(OP)
Yes, generated comments aren't allowed here and that has been the case since before GPTs. HN is for humans.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

(see also >>22427782 and similar)

We haven't added a specific rule to the guidelines about it (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) but we may end up having to.

What's tricky is that accusing other commenters of being bots/AIs is, at the same time, a new twist on the "you're a shill/astroturfer/troll/bot/spy" etc. swipe that internet users love to hurl at each other, and which we do have a guideline against (for good reason).

Between those two rules (or quasi-rules) there's a lot of room to get things wrong and I'm sorry I misread the above case!

>>dang+yO2
Thank you. Maybe you can remove my slow-ban, and we'll call it even: HN often tells me I am posting too fast, which makes me think my account was flagged at some point.

>>searea+6X2
That is a separate question, and it would be better sent to hn@ycombinator.com (this is in https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html btw). But since you asked here, I'll respond here:

We rate limit accounts when they post too many low-quality comments and/or get involved in flamewars. I'd be happy to take the rate limit off your account, but when I look at your recent comments, I still see too many that match that description:

If you want to build up a track record of using HN as intended for a while, you'd be welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and we can take a look and hopefully take the rate limit off your account.