HN Explorer

Tell HN: Submission titles should indicate entirely-AI-generated content

7 points by nunez ↗ HN
The number of articles that have hit the front page which were generated entirely by AI has risen notably within the last two years.

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.

4 comments

[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 16.2 ms ] thread
simon84
While I second that, Im not convinced that the quality of the content is altered by use (or not) of AI.

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.

sibidharan
What you think about attaching the chat transcript that lead to the final output when marking AI generated? it may be interesting to see how people will be feel a shame at how they generate slop vs genuinely using AI to come up with something. I see lot of VC applications follow this. But not sure how it will be applicable for HN.

Just need to bust low effort outputs!

simon84
I actually did this once, it was great, it actually added credibility somehow I think.

After an article, I told Claude that he can add its own note at the end as the "author" and he shall tell how I promptes him and then give a honest self-assessment.

You can check this post (regardless of the content, just check the P.S. section at the end)

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/aeonics-simon-uyttendaele-ozt...

sibidharan
I wrote this: There are people who do not have English as their first language. So using AI to write is ok, but they should indicate it? vs entirely AI generated without human review is slop. But then non-native English speakers can scribble ideas and get it structured with AI. That is actually good for both sides as it makes the communication better!

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?