←back to thread

115 points cdipaolo | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.263s | source
Show context
linotype[dead post] ◴[] No.45160084[source]
[flagged]
neitherboosh ◴[] No.45160243[source]
Hm, this comment makes me realize that there isn’t really a social consensus on whether or not AI generated content is welcome in these kinds of discussions. On one hand, I’m generally annoyed any time I see unsolicited AI generations because it’s usually garbage and I could have just asked an AI myself. But in this case I probably wasn’t going to and this comment is genuinely insightful…

I guess I would have preferred some kind of qualifier at the beginning saying it’s not written by a human

replies(4): >>45160291 #>>45160322 #>>45160492 #>>45160612 #
julienchastang ◴[] No.45160492[source]
I also agree that this comment is likely AI generated (i.e., "why this matters" gave it away for me. I think I've seen this phrase a lot with ChatGPT). I think it is the last part of the last sentence and the toeing of the party line that bugs me, "likely aimed at improving security screening and preventing abuse of the system". It's "Manufacturing Consent"[0] à la 21st Century.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

replies(1): >>45160709 #
1. linotype ◴[] No.45160709[source]
Again, please point out what’s wrong in the post and I will correct it.
replies(2): >>45161081 #>>45161203 #
2. julienchastang ◴[] No.45161081[source]
"likely aimed at improving security screening and preventing abuse of the system"

This is an opinion. Is it yours, or the AI's? Moreover, is the AI just trying to be agreeable or is this coming from a platform that has a political agenda, in this case supporting the political actors that are in charge of this visa change? These are the questions that we need to ask ourselves in these modern times.

3. CamperBob2 ◴[] No.45161203[source]
As jeffbee says, most HN users are perfectly capable of using ChatGPT as well.