Wednesday April 15 2026

Hacker Times

Don't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans

Discussion

Hacker News Guidelines

What to Submit

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

In Submissions

Please don't do things to make titles stand out, like using uppercase or exclamation points, or saying how great an article is.

Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter.

Please don't use HN primarily for promotion. It's ok to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the site should be for curiosity.

If the title includes the name of the site, please take it out, because the site name will be displayed after the link.

If the title contains a gratuitous number or number + adjective, we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to "How To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys." Exception: when the number is meaningful, e.g. "The 5 Platonic Solids."

Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.

If you submit a video or pdf, please warn us by appending [video] or [pdf] to the title.

Please don't post on HN to ask or tell us something. Send it to hn@ycombinator.com.

Please don't delete and repost. Deletion is for things that shouldn't have been submitted in the first place.

Don't solicit upvotes, comments, or submissions. Users should vote and comment when they run across something they personally find interesting—not for promotion.

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.

Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans.

Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.

Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".

Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.

Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to.

Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. Instead, put *asterisks* around it and it will get italicized. More formatting info here.

Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.

If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.

Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

nobody9999•about 1 month ago

>But I think there will always be that feeling of: a human being took the effort to write this. No matter how informative or well written an AI article or comment is, it isn't something we instinctively want to respond to, the way we do when we know there is a person behind the words.

Over and over again, when reading comments from some folks who lionize the usage of LLM outputs, as well as other folks who demonize such usage, I'm reminded of this bit from Kurt Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle[0], specifically from the "Books of Bokonon"[1]:

   Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds 
   himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people 
   who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way.

And I wonder if, (myself included) those who demonize LLM usage are those who "came by their ignorance the hard way."

I'll admit that the analogy isn't great, but there is something to it IMNSHO. Mostly that many who distrust (and often rightly so) LLM outputs have a strong negative impression (perhaps not "murderous resentment," but similar) of those who use LLMs to spout off.

I suppose this is a bit tangential to the topic at hand, but if it gets anyone to read Cat's Cradle who hasn't already, I'll take the win.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat's_Cradle

[1] https://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/personal/bokonon.html

shit_game•about 1 month ago

This issue (human attestation) is the product of these AI companies. They are poisoning the well, only to sell the cure. This may not have initially been the plan of many of these companies, but it is the eventual end goal of all of them. Very similar to war profiteers, selling both the problem and the solution simultaneously has yet to be illegalized, but has long been masterfully capitalized, and will be vigourously because nobody will stop it.

Years ago (around 2020, when GPT-2 and 3 became publicly available) I noticed and was incredibly critical of how prevalent LLM-generated content was on reddit. I was permanently banned for "abusing reports" for reporting AI-generated comments as spam. Before that, I had posted about how I believed that the the fight against bots was over because the uncanny valley of text generation had been crossed; prior to the public availability of LLMs, most spam/bot comments were either shotgunned scripts that are easily blockable by the most rudimentary of spam filters, generated gibberish created by markov chains, or simply old scraped comments being reposted. The landscape of bot operation at the time largely relied on gaming human interaction, which required carefuly gaming temporal-relevance of text content, coherence of text content (in relation to comment chains), and the most basic attempt at appearing to be organic.

After LLMs became publicly available, text content that was temporally, contextually, and coherently relevant could be generated instantly for free. This removed practically every non-platform-imposed friction for a bot to be successful on reddit (and to generalize, anywhere that people interact). Now the onus of determining what is and isn't organic interaction is squarely on the platform, which is a difficult problem because now bot operators have had much of their work freed up, and can solely focus on gaming platform heuristics instead of also having to game human perception.

This is where AI companies come in to monetize the disaster they have created; by offering fingerprinting services for content they generate, detection services for content made by themselves and others, and estimations of human authenticity for content of any form. All while they continue to sell their services that contradict these objectives, and after having stolen literally everything that has ever been on the internet to accomplish this.

These people are evil. Not these companies - they are legal constructions that don't think or feel or act. These people are evil.

altairprime•about 1 month ago

That one, yes. “Insinuations” is a less conditional form of “Accusations”, connected by the concept of “Claims”; they’re all synonymous from a general perspective:

- I insinuate that you are a bot (often shortened to “Is this a bot?”)

- I claim that you are a bot. (often shortened to “This is a bot.”)

- I accuse you of being a bot l. (often shortened to “Are you a bot?”)

The part where I’m interpreting to include accusations of bottery and slop is “and the like. It”; the first clause, ‘the like’ refers to the generic category of accusations against posted comments, which historically were the listed examples, but is also defined to include others not listed, such as today’s popular accusations of bot or AI; the second clause, ‘It’, refers to all insinuations-class content. Without the list of examples, this reads:

’Please don’t post insinuations. It degrades discussion

Yep, this is true. Accusations, Insinuations, Claims, of bot or AI or astroturf; they all wreck discussions and I end up having to email the mods to deal with them. A lot of people use the rhetorical device of Discredit The Opposition by invoking this sort of thing, and while that’s less prevalent in ‘reads like AI’ insinuations, they still degrade the site.

With AI-assisted writing is a violation of site guidelines, and even before it was, posting of AI-assisted writing was a clear ‘abuse’ of the community’s expectations of unassisted-human discussions. Aside from expectations, I can also classically understand in Internet history that ‘violating the guidelines’ is the phrase formerly known as ‘abuse of service’, by which I interpret the above reference to abuse to refer to breaking the guideline about posting accusations.

The guidelines are not a legal contract as program code, and perhaps this one is clunky enough that it needs to be reworded slightly; thus my intent, once the flames die down here, to let the mods know about the confusion. As I’m not a mod, this is my interpretation alone; you might have to email the mods and ask them to reply here if you want a formal statement on the matter, given how many comments this thread got in a couple hours.

ps. On ’and is usually mistaken’: I’m not a mod, so I can’t judge how often accusations of AI/bot are mistaken, but I’m also an old human who learned em-dashes in composition class, so I tend to view the modern pitchfork mobs out to get anyone who can compose English as being less accurate in their judgments than they believe they are.

Loading replies...

bayindirh•about 1 month ago

This is quite an interesting question, because I believe there's two facets to the surface of the question.

Given you're interacting with a competent hacker (i.e. a person who is into tech not for money and for tinkering), you can't impress them. You can pique their interest, they may praise you, but if they are informed enough, anything looking like magic can be dissected easily. So technical excellence is meaningless.

Given you're interacting with a competent hacker again, everything technical will be subjective. Creating is deciding trade-offs all the way down and beyond. Their preferences will probably lay at a difference balance of trade-offs. Even though you catch "objective" perfection, even this perfection has nuances (see USB audio interfaces. They all have flat response curves, but they all sound different, for example), hence, technical excellence is not only meaningless, it's subjective.

On a deeper level, a genuine person who knows its cookies well, even though with gaps is a much more interesting and nicer person to interact with. They'll be genuinely interested in talking with you, and learn something from you, or show what they know gently, so both parties can grow together. They might not be knowledgeable in most intricate details, but they are genuinely human and open to improvement and into the conversation itself, not to prove themselves and win a meaningless battle to stroke their own ego.

An LLM generated response is similar. It's lazy, it's impersonated, it's like low quality canned food. A new user recently has written an LLM generated rebuttal to one of my comments. It's white-labeled gibberish, insincere word-skirmish. It's so off-putting that I don't see the point to reply them. They'll just paste it to a non-descript box and will add "write a rebuttal reply, press this point". This is not a discussion, this is a meaningless fight for internet points.

I prefer genuine opinions, imperfect replies, vulnerable humans at the other end of the wire. Not a box of numbers spitting out grammatically correct yet empty sentences.

meatmanek•about 1 month ago

I like to think about it in terms of output-to-prompt ratio. For HN comments, I think an output ratio of 1 or less is _probably_ fine. Examples:

    - translating (relatively) literally from one language to another would be ~1:1.
    - automatic spelling/grammar correction is ~1:1
    - Using an LLM to help you find a concise way of expressing what you mean, i.e. giving it extra content to help it suggest a way of phrasing something that has the connotation you want, would be <1:1

Expansion (output > prompt) is where it gets problematic, at least for HN comments: if you give it an 8 word prompt and it expands it to 50, you've just wasted the reader's time -- they could've read the prompt and gotten the same information.

(expansion is perfectly fine in a coding context -- it often takes way fewer words to express what you want the program to do than the generated code will contain.)

Loading replies...

sReinwald•about 1 month ago

Any single LLM-edited comment reads fine in isolation. The uncanny valley kicks in when you read thirty of them in a row and they all use the same "it's not X, it's Y" construction. The problem isn't that LLM prose sounds inhuman but that it sounds like one human writing everything. Homogeneity at scale becomes an uncanny valley.

This happens because most people just paste a draft and say "make this better" with zero style direction. The model defaults to its own median register, and that register gets very recognizable after you've seen it a hundred times.

But this is a usage problem, not a fundamental one. I actually ran an experiment on this — fed Claude Code a massive export of my own Reddit comments, thousands of them across different subreddits, and had it build a style guide based on how I actually write and argue. The output was genuinely good. It sounded like me, not like Claude. The typical Claude-isms were just about gone.

I wouldn't expect most people to do that. But even a small prompt adjustment makes a real difference. Compare "improve this email" to something like:

    Your job is to proofread and edit the following email draft. 
    Don't make it longer, more formal, or more "polished" than it needs to be. 
    Fix anything that's actually wrong (grammar that changes meaning, tone misreads). 
    Leave stylistic roughness alone if it fits the voice. 
    If the draft is already fine, say so.

That preserves voice way more than the default "Hello computer, pls help me write good" workflow.

But if we're being honest, most people don't care about preserving their voice. They need to email their professor or write a letter to their bank, and they don't want to be misunderstood or feel stupid.

Terr_•about 1 month ago

Perhaps the unusual outcomes are just more memorable, and so seem more frequent? Here's a representative sample of 30 that were used very recently.

    Shoal, Hasty, Lobby, Vogue, Gunky, 
    Sheep, Theft, Linen, Slime, Fluke, 
    Hydra, Dizzy, Lance, Shred, Buyer, 
    Attic, Guava, Awake, Stank, Hoist,
    Mogul, Squad, Roost, Skull, Bloom,
    Mooch, Surge, Vegan, Scene, Cello,

None of those stand out as "WTF does that even mean", but maybe I'm the weird one if we adjust for age-demographics or book-reading.

If I had to guess at a riskier 20%... Guava, a fruit some people may not have had; Gunky because it's slang; Mogul, Vogue, and Mooch were borrowed from other languages; Cello is something people may have heard more than read; Hoist.