←back to thread

881 points embedding-shape | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.448s | 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
gortok ◴[] No.46206694[source]
While we will never be able to get folks to stop using AI to “help” them shape their replies, it’s super annoying to have folks think that by using AI that they’re doing others a favor. If I wanted to know what an AI thinks I’ll ask it. I’m here because I want to know what other people think.

At this point, I make value judgments when folks use AI for their writing, and will continue to do so.

replies(19): >>46206849 #>>46206977 #>>46207007 #>>46207266 #>>46207964 #>>46207981 #>>46208275 #>>46208494 #>>46208639 #>>46208676 #>>46208750 #>>46208883 #>>46209129 #>>46209200 #>>46209329 #>>46209332 #>>46209416 #>>46211449 #>>46211831 #
1. delfinom ◴[] No.46207981[source]
It's kinda funny how we once in internet culture had "lmgtfy" links because people weren't just searching google instead of asking questions.

But now people are vomiting chatgpt responses instead of linking to chatgpt.

replies(2): >>46209069 #>>46209615 #
2. subscribed ◴[] No.46209069[source]
No, linking to chatgpt is not a response. For some sort of questions it (which model exactly is it?) might be better, for some might be worse.
3. TheAdamist ◴[] No.46209615[source]
Same acronym still works, just swap gemini in place of google.