example.com/path/to/article
000 points · username · 0 hours ago
example.com7 points · 6 comments · 3 months ago · nunez
I, personally, do not want to read long-form that could have (possibly) been a high-quality Twitter post. I don't think I'm alone in thinking this given how often this sentiment comes up in the comments for these articles.
Hacker News is one of the few remaining places on the internet that values long-form content and high-quality discussion. Time is finite, and I don't appreciate these vapid articles stealing from it.
Simply put: titles for these submissions should be altered if enough users report that it is entirely AI generated AND evidence is provided to back that claim. No AI detector is fully accurate in isolation, but multiple detectors agreeing that an LLM wrote a thing makes up for that, in my opinion.
sibidharan
simon84
A click-bait for brainless content will not stick long on the front page anyhow.
If legit contributors feel more comfortable with AI reviewing their posts, I think that is fair. And I'd rather read a structured post instead of fuzzy ideas.
AI rewrote this: Some people don’t speak English as their first language. Using AI to write is fine but they should indicate it. However, entirely AI-generated content without human review is poor. Conversely, non-native English speakers can jot down ideas and have them structured with AI. This benefits both parties as it improves communication.
Now the latter is considered entirely AI generated? Did the rewrite actually help or you like to read the raw version I wrote? Which feels good to read?