> Author's note: From here on, the content is AI-generated

Kudos to the author for their honesty in admitting AI use, but this killed my interest in reading this. If you can use AI to generate this list, so can anyone. Why would I want to read AI slop?

HN already discourages AI-generated comments. I hope we can extend that to include a prohibition on all AI-generated content.

> Don't post generated comments or AI-edited comments. HN is for conversation between humans.

▲

rmunn 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If the author had also included a note explaining that he'd *reviewed* what the AI produced and checked it for correctness, I would be willing to trust the list. As it is, how do I know the `netstat` invocation is correct, and not an AI hallucination? I'll have to check it myself, obviating most of the usefulness of the list. The only reason such a list is useful is if you can trust it without checking.

	▲	tobyhinloopen an hour ago \| parent [-]
		How would you know the invocation is correct when written by a human? Don’t humans make mistakes?

▲

pjmlp 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If I get that kind of content, my first reaction is to close it, it is kind of low effort content nowadays.

Unfortunely at work it isn't as easy with all the KPIs related to taking advantage of AI to "improve" our work.

▲

charcircuit 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why should you learn anything if you can just use AI to look it up? For fun is one reason.