Fortunately I found some things we could cut as well, so https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html actually got shorter.
---
Edit: here are the bits I cut:
Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures.
It's implicit in submitting something that you think it's important.
I hate cutting any of pg's original language, which to me is classic, but as an editor he himself is relentless, and all of those bits—while still rules—no longer reflect risks to the site. I don't think we have to worry about cute animal pictures taking over HN.
---
Edit 2: ok you guys, I hear you - I've cut a couple of the cuts and will put the text back when I get home later.
> If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
I don't understand why you cut these, they seem important! (I can understand the others, which feel either implied or too specific.)
I think I'm going to put that one back, though, because it's not a hill I want to die on and I know what arguing with dozens of people simultaneously feels like when you only have 10 minutes.
Understood, but I feel like I see people breaking these ones frequently, so removing the explicit guideline feels to me like a bad idea.
Not sure if that's really solvable with rules, though.
My experience with downvotes is that people mostly use it as a "I don't like this" button, which is proxy for "I couldn't think of a counterargument so I don't want to look at it."
(I noted recently that downvotes and counterarguments appear to be mutually exclusive, which I found somewhat amusing.)
Whereas I will often upvote things I personally disagree with, if they are interesting or well reasoned. (This seems objectively better to me, of course, but maybe it's personality thing.)
Challenge accepted.
edit to add -- I completely agree with you that when one's English is "good enough," it's much better to read the original rather than an LLMs guess at how to polish it. It's just hard to define what that line is, especially for the poster themselves who has no idea what a native speaker can figure out. Would some posts be removed because they are too difficult to make sense of? Or would they be allowed in their native language?
It's purely for pragmatic reasons. We love other languages and have great admiration for the many community members who participate here despite English not being their first language.
It’s an instruction for how to use the site. It’s helpful to have it in the guidelines for when the flag feature should be used. Without it, the flag link is much more ominous.
Maybe it could be consolidated with the flag-egregious-comments rule?
Edit to add: IMHO it is not at all obvious on this site that flagging stories is meant to be roughly the equivalent of downvoting comments (and that flagging comments doesn’t have a counterpart at the story level).
I see well written people being called "LLM" here all the time, em-dash or not.
On reddit people sometimes go through the comment history and see that it seems to be a bot, but that's fairly high effort.
They already do to a certain extent via passports. I built a little human verifier using those at https://onlyhumanhub.com
My reading is that the intent is to have a human voice behind the text.
Monitor and see how it goes I guess!
The short version is that we included it to protect users who don't realize how much damage they're doing to their reception here when they think "I'll just run this through ChatGPT to fix my grammar and spelling". I've seen many cases of people getting flamed for this and I don't want more vulnerable users—e.g. people worried about their English—to get punished for trying to improve their contributions. Certainly that would apply to disabled users as well, though for different reasons.
Here are some past cases of these interactions: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu....
Edit: uni_baconcat makes the point beautifully: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47346032.
Most rules in https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html have a lot of grey area, and how we apply them always involves judgment calls. The ones we explicitly list there are mostly so we have a basis for explaining to people the intended use of the site. HN has always been a spirit-of-the-law place, and—contrary to the "technically correct is the best correct" mentality that many of us share—we consciously resist the temptation to make them precise.
In other words yes, that bit needs to be applied cautiously and with care, and in this way it's similar to the other rules. Trying to get that caution and care right is something we work at every day.
I was thinking of calling this service "Dang It."
You say you want hear posts in other people's voices but I'm pretty sure that if I did this that the people who used it would find greater acceptance of their comments than if they just posted them as they originally wrote them.
How the hell does does this place exist right now with all that is going on. I dont know much about YC, but they don't seem that humane..
For me that link says:
> Error: Forbidden
> Your client does not have permission to get URL / from this server.
I would wager that this use case is much more prevalent than ones where the LLM changed the comment significantly enough to change one's voice.
I never copy/paste from an LLM into HN. Everything is typed by myself (and I never "manually" copy LLM content). I don't have any automatic tools for inserting LLM content here.[1]
Always, always, always keep in mind that you don't notice these positive use cases, because they are not noticeable by design. So the problematic "clearly LLM" comments you see may well be a small minority of LLM-assisted comments. Don't punish the (majority) "good" folks to limit the few "bad" ones.
Lastly, I often wish we had a rule for not calling out others' comments as "AI slop" or the like.[2] It just leads to pointless debates on whether an LLM was used and distracts far more than the comment under question. I'm sure plenty of 100% human written comments have been labeled as LLM generated.
[1] The dictation one is a slight exception, and I use it only occasionally when health issues arise.
[2] Probably OK for submissions, but not comments.
Also writing a draft in Google Docs and accepting most [2] of the corrections is fine. The browser fix the orthography, but I 30% of the time forget to add the s to the verbs. For preposition, I roll a D20 and hope the best.
I'm not sure if these are expert systems, LLM, or pingeonware.
But I don't like when someone use a a LLM to rewrite the draft to make it more professional. It kills the personality of the author and may hallucinate details. It's also difficult to know how much of the post is written was the author and how much autocompleted by the AI:
[1] Remember to check that the technical terms are correctly translated. It used to be bad, but it's quite good now.
[2] most, not all. Sometimes the corrections are wrong.
Strong disagree on author voice. Vomit blows.
I think better to let recipient use full-text translation if that is necessary.
This makes me think of something: are nonnative English speakers tempted to use LLMs to correct grammar because mistakes like this actually make the writing unintelligible in their native language? For example, if I swap out the "For" in this sentence for any (?) other preposition, it's still comprehensible. (At|Of|In|By|To|On|With) example, ...
But like dang said ... I do not have time to fight this battle when I have only 10 minutes :)
Exactly when was this point added? It seems somehow not new, but on the other hand it was missing from an archive.today snapshot I found from last July. (I cannot get archive.org to give me anything useful here.)
Edit:
> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it.
> If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
Perhaps these points (and the thing about trivial annoyances, etc.) should be rolled up into a general "please don't post meta commentary outside of explicit site meta discussion"?
Does the absence of a rule against X mean that it's ok to do X? Absolutely not.
It's impossible to list all the things that people shouldn't do. Fortunately we've never walked into that trap.
Here it is "Does the lifting of a rule against X implies that it's ok to do X now?" A lot of times, the answer is yes, because that's a likely intention behind lifting a rule.
But I got that that was not your intention, because you wrote, that you removed it because they don't pose a risk anymore. That could still mean two things, that people are unlikely to do it or that people doing it now longer poses harm (relatively speaking).
Since in my experience people do like to point out to people why they were wrong posting something, this means you need them to know it is not expected to be done here. But I also don't see some other point in the guidelines about "meta-comments" in general, so that makes the second option more likely: it is okay to not forbid this now, because it does not pose that much harm. So either you expect newbies to somehow infer that rule (Why would you remove it then?) or you think it is now ok.
At any rate, it's too late. The era of organic 'cute animal' content on the internet is dead. AI slop has killed it.
> Slop has an upside?
Not exactly. Rather its is that places where one does want to find pictures of people's cute cats and dogs is now having additional moderation / administration burdens to try to keep the AI generated content out of those places.
It's not a "cute pictures of cats overrunning some place" but rather "even in the places where it was appropriate to post pictures of one's pets in #mypets or /r/cuteCatPics because such pictures are appropriate there (so they don't overrun other places), now people are starting fights over AI generated content."
An example that I recently encountered was someone who did an AI replacement of a cat that was "loafing" of a loaf of bread that looked like a cat. The cat picture would have been fine (with a dozen "aww" and "cute" comments in reply)... the AI cat loaf picture required moderation actions and some comment defusing over the use of AI.
I wanted to share some context that might be helpful: I am autistic, and I have often received feedback that my communication is snarky, rude, or tone-deaf. At work, I've found it helpful to run some of my communications through an AI tool to make my messages more accessible to non-autistic colleagues, and this approach has been working well for me.
You can't hear my voice if I'm downvoted to oblivion.
>then over time it's possible to learn to lessen such misunderstanding
Is it possible, over time, for a person with a severed spinal cord to learn how to use stairs?
The answer to this last one may be technology! Same for autistic communication: I now have a technological assist. It's called AI. AI is my wheelchair. You might not get to hear my "voice", but you will get to hear my message.
