Please rethink the “edited” bit on accessibility grounds.

I have a kid with severe written language issues, and the utilisation of speech to text with a LLM-powered edit has unlocked a whole world that was previously inaccessible.

I would hate to see a culture that discourages AI assistance.

That's totally legit and your kid, should they ever take an interest in Hacker News, is welcome here.

These rules are always fuzzy and there's always a long tail of exceptions. All the more so under turbulent conditions like right now. I wrote more about this elsewhere in the thread, in case it's useful: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47342616.

Are you up for sharing details?

> I would hate to see a culture that discourages AI assistance.

Mostly I think the push back is about ai assistance in its current form. It can get in the way of communicating rather than assisting. The cost though is mostly borne by the readers and those not using the AI for assistance. I have seen this happen when the ai adds info and thoughts that were tangental to the original author and I think, but I can not verify times where an author seems to try to dig down on the details but seemingly can not.

Oh wow. I did not anticipate that, which is embarrassing given that I wrote this just recently:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47326351

Yes, please at least have a carveout for accessibility. I definitely have dictated HN comments in the past, and my flow uses LLMs to clean it up. It works, and is awesome when you're in pain.

Since it's mostly a good-faith rule to begin with, it seems easy to add something like, "unless you are using it as an assistive technology for accessibility reasons".

Hear hear. And like many other aspects of accessibility, it will help a huge number of people who may not have any severe issues. e.g. non-native English speakers using LLM-powered edits.