For reference, the point here isn't to say "what AI thinks", but what you found with the help of AI. The majority of the cases where I would say "according to AI, <blah>" are where <blah> actually does cite sources that I feel appear plausible. Sometimes they're links, sometimes they would be other publications not necessarily a click away. Sometimes I could independently verify them by spending half an hour researching (which is), sometimes I can't. Sometimes I could spend half an hour verifying them independently, sometimes I can't do that but they still seem worthwhile.

> If you merely found X, Y and Z compelling, feel free to talk about it without mentioning AI.

I think you're seeing this as too black-and-white, and missing the heart of the issue.

The purpose of mentioning AI is to convey the level of (un)certainty as accurately as possible. The most accurate way to do that would often be to mention any use of AI, rather than hiding it.

If AI tells me that it believes X is true because of links A and B that it cites, and I find those links compelling, then I absolutely want to mention that AI gave me those links because I have no clue whether the model had any reason to bias itself toward those sources, or whether alternate links may have existed that stated otherwise.

Whereas if a normal web search just gives links that mention terms from my query, then I get a chance to see the other links too, and I end up being the one who actually compare the contents of the different pages and figure out which one is most convincing.

Depending on various factors, such as the nature of the question and the level of background knowledge I have on the topic myself, one of these can provide a more useful response than the other -- but only if I convey the uncertainty around it accurately.

I constantly read those comments and I personally have conflicting opinion with them. On one hand, it's interesting to compare what is coming out of models, but on the other hand, LLMs are all non-deterministic, so results will be fairly random. On top of that, everybody has a different "skill" level when prompting. In addition, models are constantly changing, therefore "I asked chatGPT and it said..." means nothing when there is a new version every few months, not to mention you can often pick one of 10+ flavors from every provider, and even those are not guaranteed to not be changed under the hood to some degree over time.

I explained this in a bit more depth in an adjacent reply (feel free to take a look) but obtaining the source from AI doesn't achieve the same thing. For example, there might be other links that contradict that source, which the AI wouldn't cite. Knowing that AI picked the "best" one vs. a human is incredibly relevant when assigning and weighing credibility.

Yes, and that's the case with all the rules. I don't want to say "you should break them when it makes sense" because if I do, someone will post "Tell HN: dang says break the rules". But the rules are there to serve the intended spirit of the site—not the other way around. If you're posting in that spirit, I would hope we would recognize and and welcome that, not tut-tut it with rules.

The analogy with tab-completion of code seems apt. At first you blindly accept something because it has at least as good a chance of working as what you would have typed. Then you start to pay attention, and critically evaluate suggestions. Then you quickly if not blindly accept most suggestions, because they're clearly what you would have written anyway (or close enough to not care).

The phenomenon was observed in religious philosophy over a millennium ago (https://terebess.hu/zen/qingyuan.html).

From his description, it sounded like this was more of #1. He cared a lot about the topic he was writing about, and has high standards for himself, so it's very likely that he would have considered and rejected poor suggestions.

I have mixed feeling about it. On the one hand, you're right: carefully considering suggestions can be a learning opportunity. On the other hand, approval is easier than generation, and I suspect that without flexing the "come up with it from scratch" muscle frequently, that his mind won't develop as much.

#1 would be a net improvement over the status quo IMO. Seems like a great way for people to expand their vocabularies organically.

I disabled them immediately, it feels like the tech version of the ADHD person who keeps interrupting you with what they think you are trying to say. Even if the suggestion is correct, it saves you at most 2 seconds at the cost of interrupting you constantly.

True! There's an important cybernetic aspect to all this, where an automatic suggestion can be an interruption, sometimes worse if the suggestion is decent.

A certain amount of friction is necessary, at least if the goal is to help the person learn or make something original.

I look forward to reading studies in 10 years how we all became stupider thanks to this "feature". One step closer to the movie Idiocracy.

GK Chesterton would have something brilliant to say about the inauthenticity of it all or something.

I see the suggestions and then choose something different anyway. I don't want to use one of the top 3 most popular responses to an email from a friend. Even if it's something transactional.

> I despise these suggestions

As an adult, I do too. As a middle schooler, we absolutely used word processors’ thesaurus features to add big words to our essays because the teachers liked them.

People who don't have English as their first language often seem to underestimate how good their English actually is. I wonder if it's because their reference point is formal English rather than the much more forgiving English we use in casual day-to-day conversation.

I don't personally use AI/LLMs for any informal writing here or on reddit, etc. But I think it is pretty weird to be overly concerned around people, particularly ESL, who use tools to clean up their writing. The only thing I really care about is when someone posts LLM regurgitated information on topics they personally don't know anything about. If the information is coming from the human but the style and tone is being tweaked by a machine to make it more acceptable/receptive and fix the bugs in it, then I don't understand why you're telling me I need to care and gatekeeping it. It also is unlikely to be very detectable, and this thread seems to only serve a performative use for people to get offended about it.

Oof, I haven't finished Zen yet. I didn't know he was gone. RIP

It’s possible of course but reading all the comments from various non-native English speakers here it seems like a common story. It may indicate a subliminal bias in readers (most of whom are presumably American).

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

I knew someone was going to comment on my use of the word there despite me putting it in quotes which was intended to let the reader know that I meant that word as an approximation of what I was meaning.

When I say competing I mean competing in the space of ideas here. There is a ranking system here that raises or lowers the visibility and prominance of your comments and it's based on upvotes by other uses. For better or worse people penalize comments with grammatical errors over ones that don't and that affects how much exposure other users have to the ideas that people write and how much interaction they get from them.

If that's the case why would somebody who has good ideas but poor expressive capability bother posting here if their comments are just going to get ignored over relatively vapid comments that are grammatically correct?

Yes! If my comment is above yours in a thread, it means I got more upvotes than you did, which means I get special bonuses and more to eat and you go hungry in Internet land. Also it means I'm better than you (obviously) and I get to go to this secret club with all the pretty people and you're not invited. Isn't that how this all works?

> You could run the comments everyone else posts through an AI tool and ask it to rephrase it so that it is clean, and easy-to-read.

For those coming from a language other than English, you are more likely to lose information by using a tool to “reconstruct” meaning from poorly phrased English as an input, as opposed to the poster using a tool to generate meaningful English from their (presumably) well-written native language.

> You could run the comments everyone else posts through an AI tool and ask it to rephrase it so that it is clean, and easy-to-read.

But that creates a private version of the text which the original poster didn't sign off on. You could have fixed something contrary to their intent.

There's a big difference between me running a filter on other people's words, and those people themselves choosing to run one and then approving the results.

I personally don't see a problem with someone using a grammar checker as long as they aren't just blindly accepting its suggestions. That said, if someone actually is using it in that way, it shouldn't be detectable anyway, so it probably doesn't matter all that much whether or not it's included in the letter of the rule.

I thought it was sarcasm given you are asking people to “pay a proofreader”. This sounds ludicrous. Could you clarify wha you meant by that line if it’s not sarcasm? Because I’m having a hard time thinking that it’s meant to be taken at face value.