←back to thread

881 points embedding-shape | 1 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
michaelcampbell ◴[] No.46206776[source]
Related: Comments saying "this feels like AI". It's this generation's "Looks shopped" and of zero value, IMO.
replies(7): >>46206902 #>>46206906 #>>46206999 #>>46207044 #>>46208117 #>>46208137 #>>46208444 #
sbrother ◴[] No.46206906[source]
Fair, but then that functionality should be built into the flagging system. Obvious AI comments (worse, ones that are commercially driven) are a cancer that's breaking online discussion forums.
replies(1): >>46208875 #
1. criddell ◴[] No.46208875[source]
I think Slashdot still has the best moderating system. Being able to flag a comment as insightful, funny, offtopic, redundant, etc... adds a lot of information and gives more control to readers over the types, quantity, and quality of discussion they see.

For example, some people seem to be irritated by jokes and being able to ignore +5 funny comments might be something they want.