In Defense of Not-Invented-Here Syndrome (2001)

Re:In Defense of Not-Invented-Here Syndrome (2001) by InitialLastName on Monday February 13, 2023 @05:36PM (#34781873)

Has dang ever ruled on the appropriateness of this situation, where someone just redirects AI-generated output to their comment (absent any evaluative substance and on a digression from a digression fully unrelated to the discussion of AI)?

It strikes me as a bad-faith way to farm for low-effort internet points, but I'm just some idiot on the internet so I'll have to satisfy myself with a down-vote, a mild complaint, and a minute or two of wasted time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In Defense of Not-Invented-Here Syndrome (2001) by noitpmeder on Monday February 13, 2023 @06:03PM (#34782231)

I've definitely seen this in the wild -- certain accounts here post long-winded responses that at first glance seem very technical and hard to understand, but after a closer reading reveal it's just a mismatch of jargon intermixed with tangents.

See here, for one example: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=Cullinet

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:In Defense of Not-Invented-Here Syndrome (2001) by sph on Monday February 13, 2023 @06:17PM (#34782405)

The AI generated bullshit spam that will soon invade the net will appear here first. I've been ranting about openly-AI-generated content, profiles and comments on this forum before, to deaf ears and sneers calling me a Luddite.

I am quite tired of reading "I asked ChatGPT x and they said:", and it's been around for just 3 months.

Dang is quite equanimous, so I doubt he will take an open stance for or against it, but I dream he'd just come out and say "chill it with the GPT people. This place is for thoughtful discussion".

[ Parent | on HN ]