I believe it was shown by the HN mods that the author of that article not only changed some parts of it (including writing the title entirely by hand), but they also were involved in manipulating HN with multiple accounts and voting rings. There's more info here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24062702

Thanks for the update, hadn’t seen that

This seems like more of a comment about the hacker news audience than the physical reasoning skills of gpt3

You can't deduce anything about the total audience from the small subset that clicked and commented in the thread.

If you submit a thread linking to a [garbage topic], then anyone who wants to discuss that is going to be in the thread and anyone who doesn't, isn't. No matter what the typical person on the site is, with a small subset of a large population, it's going to have a pronounced...flavor. Especially if the headline gives a hint of what it's about.

It seems like submitting dreck to HN and then crowing about it is becoming a theme apart from GPT-3.

The article isn't really denying GPT's capabilities of copying human text in a way that can fool other humans. Most of the questions these days are just a matter of 'well, can it think for itself?' or 'is it good enough to use in my business without tweaking significantly?', so either philosophical or practical questions that are quite boring. Everyone has sort of moved on from the 'fooling humans' part because I guess it's not really all that interesting that feeding an AI several million webpages makes it eventually sound like it can write things that come from those webpages.

The title of that post was human written and many voters only read the headline

A lot of search hits for popular topics have been artificially generated text for years. Have you noticed this? Google has severely failed at filtering these out.

Do we have any evidence the authors of that post used GPT-3 at all?

HN readers are not a general intelligence. Loads of people are skimming, not reading critically.