Depends on how you use the AI. if you use it a bit like you'd ask a human to proof-read your work, AI can actually be quite helpful.

The other important thing you can do is have an AI check your claims before you post. Even with google and pubmed, a quick check against sources by hand can take 30 minutes or longer, while with AI tooling it takes 5. Guess which one is more likely to actually lead to people checking their facts before they post. (even if imperfectly!) .

I'm not talking about people who lazily ask the AI to write their post for them. Or those who don't actually go through and actually get the AI to find primary sources. Those people are not being as helpful. Though try consider educating them on more responsible tool use as well?

▲

the_af 4 hours ago | parent [-]

To clarify my thoughts on this, I'm not against using AI to research/hone your arguments. It's no different to using Wikipedia or googling.

I don't think that's what this new HN guideline is against either.

What I object is the AI writing your comments for you. I want to engage with other human beings, not the bot-mediated version of them.

	▲	BeetleB 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> To clarify my thoughts on this, I'm not against using AI to research/hone your arguments. It's no different to using Wikipedia or googling. > I don't think that's what this new HN guideline is against either. This is actually how many commenters here are interpreting it, though - and that's what I'm pushing back against. They are actively advocating against using LLMs this way. I don't have the LLM write the comment for me. I (sometimes) give it my draft, along with all the parents to the root, and get feedback. I look for specific things (Am I being too argumentative? Am I invoking a logical fallacy? Is it obvious I misinterpreted a comment that I'm replying to? Is my comment confusing? etc). Adding things like (Am I violating an HN guideline?) are fair game. Earlier today I wrote a lot of comments without using the LLM's feedback. In one particular thread I repeatedly misunderstood the original context of the discussion and wasted people's time. I reposted my draft to the LLM and it alerted me of my problematic comment. Had I used it originally, I would have saved a lot of people time. Incidentally, since I started doing this (a few months ago), I've only edited my comment once or twice based on its feedback. Most of the time it just tells me my comment looks good.
	▲	yellowapple 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The problem is that there's a vast range of values between “using AI to research/hone your arguments” v. “AI writing your comments for you”, and between the rule itself and dang's various remarks on it, where exactly the rule draws the line is about as clear as mud.