Every Show HN should come with an AI disclosure detailing exactly how much AI was used to create it. It's not that using AI is bad per se, but I don't want to be a human critiquing an AI's work, it's hard to respond if I don't know who/what built it.

We're considering how to improve the way Show HNs are evaluated and presented.

Lately we've had to think deeply about exactly what has changed about Show HNs in the era of AI-generated code, and one way of thinking about it is that code-generation has basically eaten everything that used to be interesting about most Show HN posts. I.e.: What were the obstacles to making it work? What approaches did you try that didn't work? What was the breakthrough that made it work? What do you learn?

So, we need a new way of evaluating the ways in which a project may be interesting to the HN audience, and in the way project creators convey that in their post. It will take time for new conventions to emerge, but we're doing what we can to help find them.

For now, please don't post comments like this. It arguably counts as snark, a swipe, curmudgeonliness, a generic tangent, or other breaches of the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

If you think something is unfit for HN, please email us (hn@ycombinator.com) and we'll take a look.

It’s funny… my initial reaction to your comment was that it’s a bit persnickety to expect that. However, I’m coming around to agreeing. I recently spent a non-trivial amount of time responding to a PR into one of my projects. I did have a sense it was mostly AI, but the changes were reasonable with a bit of adjustment. Wrote some feedback and guidance for the first time contributor and bam, they closed the PR, haven’t heard back.

Every Show HN should come with a disclosure detailing exactly how much compiler was used to create it.

I mean it's not that using compilers is bad, it's just that those who use them aren't real coders.