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 )

Why would "human originated" be a better place to draw the line than "no generated/AI-edited comments"?

Like, I'm sure that AIs technically can write non-crap HN comments, but they rarely do. Even if it was less rare, the community that resulted from fostering AI-generated content would be unappealing to a lot of people, myself included. The fact that information here is the result of real people with real human opinions conversing is at least as important to me as the content being posted.

Honestly, I think "human originated" is the only rule that actually matters because we can't stop LLMs from sounding smart anyway. If you wait for a technical ban on AI-generated text, you're just playing catch-up with tools that already pass as human.

The real point isn't stopping bad grammar, it's preserving the vibe. HN feels different because it's messy humans arguing, not optimized algorithms trying to be helpful.

Once we allow "good enough" AI content, the community stops feeling like a town square and starts feeling like a customer service chatbot. We need real people with actual stakes in their opinions, not just perfect outputs. Let's keep it human or leave it.

This comment may or may not have been generated with an LLM, but I won't tell and you can't prove it either way.

These are guidelines. I'm sure asking an AI about your comment (not pasting its text, so it's still your words) isn't an issue. The main target is obvious slop like https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=patchnull