←back to thread

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

882 points embedding-shape | 1 comments | 09 Dec 25 16:02 UTC | HN request time: 0.199s | 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 ◴[09 Dec 25 16:17 UTC] 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 #
hotsauceror ◴[09 Dec 25 16:37 UTC] No.46207007[source]▶
I agree with this sentiment.

When I hear "ChatGPT says..." on some topic at work, I interpret that as "Let me google that for you, only I neither care nor respect you enough to bother confirming that that answer is correct."

replies(7): >>46207092 #>>46207476 #>>46209024 #>>46209098 #>>46209421 #>>46210608 #>>46210884 #
JeremyNT ◴[09 Dec 25 17:09 UTC] No.46207476[source]▶
In a work context, for me at least, this class of reply can actually be pretty useful. It indicates somebody already minimally investigated a thing and may have at least some information about it, but they're hedging on certainty by letting me know "the robots say."

It's a huge asterisk to avoid stating something as a fact, but indicates something that could/should be explored further.

(This would be nonsense if they sent me an email or wrote an issue up this way or something, but in an ad-hoc conversation it makes sense to me)

I think this is different than on HN or other message boards, it's not really used by people to hedge here, if they don't actually personally believe something to be the case (or have a question to ask) why are they posting anyway? No value there.

replies(2): >>46208893 #>>46209959 #
1. dogleash ◴[09 Dec 25 20:09 UTC] No.46209959[source]▶
> can actually be pretty useful. It indicates somebody already minimally investigated a thing

Every time this happens to me at work one of two things happens:

1) I know a bit about the topic, and they're proudly regurgitating an LLM about an aspect of the topic we didn't discuss last time. They think they're telling me something I don't know, while in reality they're exposing how haphazard their LLM use was.

2) I don't know about the topic, so I have to judge the usefulness of what they say based on all the times that person did scenario Number 1.