While it is important to maintain the quality and integrity of content on HN, implementing hard bans for undisclosed machine-generated submissions could have some negative consequences. For one, it could discourage users from experimenting with and sharing the latest advancements in AI and machine learning, which could stifle innovation and progress in these fields. Additionally, it could lead to a lack of transparency and accountability, as users may be hesitant to disclose their use of AI in fear of being banned. This could also result in a lack of diversity in perspectives and ideas on the platform. Instead of hard bans, it may be more effective to implement stricter moderation policies and provide resources for users to improve the quality of their contributions, whether they are generated by AI or not.

Noice chatGPT

Yeah I'm in favour of this also, but proving it might be tricky, and people will get unjustly banned.

Then there's the question of situations where people might actually use ChatGPT in a creative way to augment discussion.

Let's say we're talking about the pitfalls of repetitive code over breaking things cleanly into small functions. You have an example of this in mind that highlights a specific pitfall that you encountered, but don't want to share proprietary code, so you might ask ChatGPT (or a future model) to generate some code that demonstrates the same thing, rather than writing it yourself.

I think we're still early enough in the tech that it's hard to create hard-and-fast rules about what kind of content should be allowed; ideally, we'll get to the point where AI can help facilitate and augment human interactions, rather than taking over completely.