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

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Hacker News has formally added a guideline banning AI‑generated and AI‑edited comments, aiming to preserve the site as a place for human‑to‑human conversation despite the growing ease of using large language models. Commenters broadly support the intent but highlight practical problems: AI content is hard to reliably detect, accusations risk turning into witch‑hunts, and strict bans may unintentionally penalize non‑native speakers, people with disabilities, or those using tools for translation and light proofreading. Many conclude that, as with other HN norms, the rule will mainly shape behavior of good‑faith users, while longer‑term solutions will likely rely on trust networks, reputation systems, and possibly smaller, more curated communities.

Purpose of the new guideline

  • Guideline formally bans generated or AI‑edited comments; intention is to keep HN a human‑to‑human conversation space.
  • Many see this as clarifying an existing norm that bots, bulk paste, and “agent” comments were already unwelcome.
  • Goal is less about technical purity and more about preserving “vibe”: messy, opinionated humans, not engagement‑optimized slop.

Enforcement, feasibility, and culture

  • Wide agreement that airtight enforcement is impossible; AI content already passes as human.
  • Several argue rules mainly shape culture and give moderators a basis to act on obvious abuse and low‑effort flooding.
  • Some worry the rule is “performative” and will mostly punish people honest enough to disclose AI use.

AI assistance vs AI authorship

  • Strong split:
    • One side: any AI rewriting (beyond basic spellcheck) hides voice, flattens style, and shortcuts thinking; if a model chose the words, it’s not your comment.
    • Other side: using AI for grammar, structure, or summarizing sources can help non‑experts, ESL speakers, and “neurospicy” people communicate more clearly; the ideas are still human.
  • Many propose a pragmatic line: research, translation, fact‑checking, or private feedback are fine; copy‑pasted AI prose is not.

Accessibility, ESL, and fairness

  • Several dyslexic, disabled, and non‑native speakers say LLM editing unlocked participation they otherwise wouldn’t have.
  • Others counter that imperfect language is acceptable, and over‑reliance on AI both harms learning and invites unfair judgment.
  • Accessibility carve‑outs are widely suggested but the exact boundary remains unclear.

Detection and “witch‑hunts”

  • Complaints that accusations of “AI slop” are often wrong and more disruptive than the suspected comment.
  • Existing guideline against posting insinuations is highlighted; users are urged to email moderators rather than call people bots in‑thread.

Identity, proof‑of‑humanity, and the future of forums

  • Long subthread on proof‑of‑human systems: biometric orbs, ID‑based tokens, SIM‑like schemes, invite trees, reputation graphs, and cert authorities.
  • Many see these as either dystopian, easily subverted, or fatally anonymity‑eroding.
  • Some predict large open forums will “slop up,” pushing serious discussion into smaller, invite‑only or reputation‑based communities, with a real loss of public, searchable knowledge.

Alternative ideas and concerns

  • Suggestions include: rate limits and link limits for new accounts, bot‑flag buttons, soft algorithmic downweighting of AI‑like text, or mandatory AI‑labeling rather than banning.
  • A minority argue source shouldn’t matter: if a comment is interesting and correct, human vs AI is irrelevant.
  • Others note the irony of an AI‑funding ecosystem wanting to wall itself off from the very slop its tools enable.