I am curious why you think the commenter is the problem?

If authors would be open about their use of AI right in the title, I could decide for myself if I want to read it or not and spend the time, and there would be no need to write a comment to warn other users not to waste theirs.

So the root of the problem is authors not disclosing properly. Not commenters telling others about the clickscam the author is pulling.

And the commenter really shouldn’t need to prove it’s AI written. The author needs to prove it’s not. If you want my attention and time, you should have a good reason.

Right now, authors on HN are just abusing the fact that I need to click their bullshit to find out that it’s bullshit I wouldn’t have read if it was disclosed properly from the start.

If I want llm output, why would I read your writing if I could just ask one myself and get an equal result?

Also, it’s short-sighted to think it’s just the writing style that makes people think it’s fully or partially AI-generated. This website has a ton of people with decades of experience and domain knowledge in their fields.

For people with domain knowledge, it’s quite easy to spot flaws someone without domain knowledge generating words about something they have zero expertise in, or only having it explained by the machine that is making things up, is making.

I don’t see the need for moderation to police people who think something is AI generated. You tell people they can just ignore the article, but they can’t, they have to click and read to find out, and on the other hand you could also just ignore their comment if you don’t like it, or disagree and tell everyone why you think this is not AI-generated bullshit wasting others people time to generate clicks.