IMO HN should add a guideline about not insinuating things were written by AI. It degrades the quality of the site similarly to many of the existing rules.

Arguably it would be covered by some of the existing rules, but it's become such a common occurrence that it may need singling out.

▲

ModernMech 11 hours ago | parent [-]

What degrades conversation is to lie about something being not AI when it actually is. People pointing out the fraud are right to do so.

One thing I've learned is that comment sections are a vital defense on AI content spreading, because while you might fool some people, it's hard to fool all the people. There have been times I've been fooled by AI only to see in the comments the consensus that it is AI. So now it's my standard practice to check comments to see what others are saying.

If mods put a rule into place that muzzles this community when it comes to alerting others a fraud is being affected, that just makes this place a target for AI scams.

▲

ants_everywhere 11 hours ago | parent [-]

It's 2025, people are going to use technology and its use will spread.

There are intentional communities devoted to stopping the spread of technology, but HN isn't currently one of them. And I've never seen an HN discussion where curiosity was promoted by accusations or insinuations of LLM use.

It seems consistent to me with the rules against low effort snark, sarcasm, insinuating shilling, and ideological battles. I don't personally have a problem with people waging ideological battles about AI, but it does seem contrary to the spirit of the site for so many technical discussions to be derailed so consistently in ways that specifically try to silence a form of expression.

▲

ModernMech 11 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm 100% okay with AI spreading. I use it every day. This isn't a matter of an ideological battle against AI, it's a matter of fraudulent misrepresentation. This wouldn't be a discussion if the author themselves hadn't claimed what they had, so I don't see why the community should be barred from calling that out. Why bother having curious discussions about this book when they are blatantly lying about what is presented here? Here's some curiosity: what else are they lying about, and why are they lying about this?

▲

ants_everywhere 11 hours ago | parent [-]

To clarify there is no evidence of any lying or fraud. So far all we have evidence of is HN commenters assuming bad faith and engaging in linguistic phrenology.

▲

ModernMech 10 hours ago | parent [-]

There is evidence, it's circumstantial, but there's never going to be 100% proof. And that's the point, that's why community detection is the best weapon we have against such efforts.

	▲	maxbond 10 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		(Nitpick: it's actually direct evidence, not circumstantial evidence. I think you mean it isn't conclusive evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that requires an additional inference, like the accused being placed at the scene of the crime implying they may have been the perpetrator. But stylometry doesn't require any additional inference, it's just not foolproof.)
	▲	10 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]