←back to thread

Ask HN: Should "I asked $AI, and it said" replies be forbidden in HN guidelines?

882 points embedding-shape | 2 comments | 09 Dec 25 16:02 UTC | HN request time: 0.011s | 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
flkiwi ◴[09 Dec 25 18:08 UTC] No.46208295[source]▶
I read comments citing AI as essentially equivalent to "I ran a $searchengine search and here is the most relevant result." It's not equivalent, but it has one identical issue and one new-ish one:

1. If I wanted to run a web search, I would have done so 2. People behave as if they believe AI results are authoritative, which they are not

On the other hand, a ban could result in a technical violation in a conversation about AI responses where providing examples of those responses is entirely appropriate.

I feel like we're having a larger conversation here, one where we are watching etiquette evolve in realtime. This is analogous to "Should we ban people from wearing bluetooth headsets in the coffee shop?" in the 00s: people are demonstrating a new behavior that is disrupting social norms but the actual violation is really that the person looks like a dork. To that end, I'd probably be more for public shaming, potentially a clear "we aren't banning it but please don't be an AI goober and don't just regurgitate AI output", more than I would support a ban.

replies(9): >>46208592 #>>46208859 #>>46209151 #>>46209987 #>>46210530 #>>46210557 #>>46210638 #>>46210955 #>>46211367 #
charcircuit ◴[09 Dec 25 18:29 UTC] No.46208592[source]▶
>If I wanted to run a web search, I would have done so

While true, many times people don't want to do this because they are lazy. If they just instead opened up chatgpt they could have instantly gotten their answer. It results in a waste of everyone's time.

replies(4): >>46208827 #>>46208857 #>>46208914 #>>46209197 #
1. droopyEyelids ◴[09 Dec 25 18:45 UTC] No.46208827[source]▶
Well put. There are two sides of the coin: the lazy questioner who expects others to do the work researching what they would not, and the lazy/indulgent answerer who basically LMGTFY's it.

Ideally we would require people who ask questions to say what they've researched so far, and where they got stuck. Then low-effort LLM or search engine result pages wouldn't be such a reasonable answer.

replies(1): >>46211300 #
2. WorldPeas ◴[09 Dec 25 21:57 UTC] No.46211300[source]▶
I haven't thought about LMGTFY since stackoverflow. Usually though I see responses with people thrusting forth AI answers that provide more reasoning, back then LMGTFY was more about rote conventions(e.g. "how do you split a string on ," and ai is used more for "what are ways that solar power will change grid dynamics")