I think they should be banned, if there isnt a contribution besides what the llm answered. It's akin to 'I googled this', which is uninteresting.
replies(5):
While the guidelines were written (and iterated on) during a different time, it seems like it might be time to have a discussion about if those sort of comments should be welcomed on HN or not.
Some examples:
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46164360
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46200460
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46080064
Personally, I'm on HN for the human conversation, and large LLM-generated texts just get in the way of reading real text from real humans (assumed, at least).
What do you think? Should responses that basically boil down to "I asked $LLM about $X, and here is what $LLM said:" be allowed on HN, and the guidelines updated to state that people shouldn't critique it (similar to other guidelines currently), or should a new guideline be added to ask people from refrain from copy-pasting large LLM responses into the comments, or something else completely?
I do wish people wouldn’t do it when it doesn’t add to the conversation but I would advocate for collective embarrassment over a ham-fisted regex.
In a discussion of RISC v5 and if it can beat ARM someone just posting “ChatGPT says X” adds absolutely nothing to the discussion but noise.
"I googled this" is only helpful when the statistic or fact they looked up was correct and well-sourced. When it's a reddit comment, you derail into a new argument about strength of sources.
The LLM skips a step, and gets you right to the "unusable source" argument.
Still, I will fight that someone actually doing the leg work even by search engine and reasonable evaluation on a few sources is often quite valuable contribution. Sometimes even if it is done to discredit someone else.