alt Hacker NewsDon't post generated/AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans
Comments
Love to see it.
The next step is to run Pangram on every post and ban the offenders! Fight AI with AI! /s
In all seriousness, this is one of the few places I trust for genuine conversations with other people. Forums are mostly dead, Reddit is bots-galore, and I'm not signing up for Facebook just for groups.
You're absolutely right! /s
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
The prompt everyone was using:
"Please generate a response to this and include one or more of the following words: enshitification, slop, ZIRP, Paul Graham, dark patterns, rent seeking, late stage capitalism, regulatory capture, SSO tax, clickbait, did you read the article?, Rust, vibe code, obligatory XKCD, regulations, feudalistic, land value tax"
(/s)
[flagged]
[flagged]
The hardest part of this policy is the "edited" qualifier. I use LLMs constantly as thinking tools — rubber-ducking architecture decisions, pressure-testing arguments before I post them. The final comment is mine, shaped by my experience and opinions, but the process of arriving at it involved a machine. Drawing a bright line between "I refined my thinking with Claude" and "I pasted Claude's output" seems important but genuinely difficult to enforce. The spirit of the rule is clear though: HN works because people are accountable for what they say, and that breaks down when a comment is optimized for engagement rather than expressing what someone actually thinks.
Hacker News turning more authoritarian every day. Me thinks Trump should consider annexing it :)
Also please don't post accusations of comments reeking of AI.
Pinky swear!
You are absolutely right !
I would amend to:
"Don't post comments that are not human originated at this time. We want to see your human opinion shine through."
This gives people some amount of leeway and allows just rhe right amount of exceptions that prove the rule.
(That said, to be frank, some of the newer better behaved models are sometimes more polite and better HN denizens than the actual humans. This is something you're going to have to take into account! :-P )
Dang, try to ban me now, bitch
HN only supports English so it should be allowed for anyone using LLMs for translation.
Mine understant novell you policy. AI gramair chex no.
i agree but how is this ever going to be enforced verified? https://proofofhumanity.id/ ?
This is going to be a tough ask. I am with this 100% for "ai generated" but not "ai edited". What if I'm using AI for spellchecking or correcting bad grammar? what if it is an accessiblity-related use case? or translation?
It's just a tool ffs! there are many issues with LLM abuse, but this sort of over-compensation is exactly the sort of stuff that makes it hard to get abuse under control.
You're still talking with a human!, there is no actual "AI" you're not talking to an actual artificial intelligence. "don't message me unless you've written it with ink, on papyrus". There is a world of difference between grammarly and an autonomous agent creating comments on its own. Specifics, context, and nuance matter.
I'm sorry, but I would just have to just say no.
## Opposing the Ban on AI-Generated/Edited Comments on HN
*The value of a comment should be judged by its content, not its origin.*
Here are key arguments against this policy:
- *Ideas matter more than authorship.* If a comment is insightful, well-reasoned, and contributes meaningfully to a discussion, dismissing it solely because AI assisted in its creation is a genetic fallacy — judging an argument by its source rather than its merit.
- *We already accept tool-assisted thinking.* People routinely use calculators, search engines, spell-checkers, and reference materials before posting. AI assistance exists on a spectrum with these tools. Drawing a bright line specifically at "AI-edited" is arbitrary when someone could use a thesaurus, Grammarly, or have a friend proofread their comment without objection.
- *It disadvantages non-native speakers.* Many HN users are brilliant engineers and thinkers who don't write fluently in English. AI editing can level the playing field, allowing their ideas to be judged on substance rather than prose quality. This policy inadvertently privileges native English speakers.
- *It's effectively unenforceable.* There is no reliable way to distinguish a lightly AI-polished comment from a naturally well-written one. Unenforceable rules erode respect for the rules that are enforceable and important.
- *The real problem is low-effort content, not the tool used.* What HN actually wants to prevent is shallow, generic, or spammy comments. A policy targeting quality directly (which HN already has) addresses the actual concern better than a blanket tool prohibition.
- *Human intent still drives the conversation.* A person who uses AI to articulate their own idea more clearly is still participating in a human conversation — they're just communicating more effectively. The thought, the intent to engage, and the underlying perspective remain human.
*In short:* This rule conflates the medium with the message and risks excluding valuable contributions in pursuit of an authenticity standard that is both philosophically fuzzy and practically unenforceable.
There are ways to test for AI but sadly it would probably result in violation of other hn guidelines.
I have a kid with severe written language issues, and the utilisation of STT w/ a LLM-powered edit has unlocked a whole world that was previously inaccessible.
What is amazing is it would have remained so just a couple of years ago!
The irony is that this guide is written like a system prompt. We‘re all working with LLMs too much these days.
If you want your comments to sound more human — stop using em dashes everywhere. LLMs love them — along with neat structure, “furthermore”-style transitions, and perfectly balanced paragraphs.
Humans write a bit messier — commas, short sentences, abrupt turns.
I decided to break the rules:
Forum mechanics have always shaped discourse more than policies. Voting changed everything. The response to LLMs should be mechanical not moral — soft, invisible weighting against signals correlated with generated text. Imperfect but worth the tradeoff, just like voting.
https://claude.ai/share/9fcdcba8-726b-4190-b728-bb4246ff82cf
[flagged]
This seems fine as a short-term solution, but human-only is no good as a long-term rule. The AIs will soon surpass human capability. Even in the present, I think some AI comments are already decent quality. It's just most of them aren't high quality yet.
And I'm worried banning AIs altogether will eventually lead to some form of prove-you-are-human verification to use the site, which will reduce anonymity. Even something seemingly benign like verifying email would mean many unverified accounts like my own will disappear.
And there is a legitimate use for LLM rewrite to counter identification by stylometry, so rewrite shouldn't be banned. I think we'll have to allow the AI stuff at some point, and make a system that incentivizes quality posts regardless of where they come from or how they're written.
[dead]