←back to thread

881 points embedding-shape | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source

As various LLMs become more and more popular, so does comments with "I asked Gemini, and Gemini said ....".

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?

Show context
masfuerte ◴[] No.46206777[source]
Does it need a rule? These comments already get heavily down-voted. People who can't take a hint aren't going to read the rules.
replies(6): >>46207158 #>>46207351 #>>46207646 #>>46208995 #>>46209063 #>>46209147 #
1. eskori ◴[] No.46207351[source]
If HN mods think the rule should be applied whatever the community thinks (for now), then yes, it needs a rule.

As I see it, down-voting is an expression of the community posture, rules are an expression of the "space" posture. It's up to the space to determine if there is something relevant enough to include it in the rules.

And again, as I see it, community should also have a way to at least suggest modifications of the rules.

I agree with you in "People who can't take a hint aren't going to read the rules". But as they say: "Ignorance of the law does not exempt one from compliance."

replies(1): >>46209064 #
2. tptacek ◴[] No.46209064[source]
Again: there already is a rule against this.
replies(1): >>46215640 #
3. eskori ◴[] No.46215640[source]
Hi! Yup, I didn't know it and your comment talking about this (completely agree btw) was made later, so sorry if it felt repetitive to you but thanks for coming here to let us know :)