If they wanted to ask an LLM, the GP would have done so themselves.

i disagree on this, people comment with stuff anyone could google all the time. its nice to see info without doing it myself, and esp when often i never would. however gpt-whatever is a bad choice for this bc its a very likely scenario to make up bs

> people comment with stuff anyone could google all the time

But presumably with some knowledge or review of it. Commenting with a link to the first Google result comes across about as well as quoting an LLM output.

Yeah but I guess they wanted to add something in the value for everyone of us while they didn't have ofc the whole knowledge to do so.

their heart might be in the right place tbh. But that's my 2 cents.

>But that's my 2 cents.

Or is it really ChatGPTs 2 cents? Copy-pasting LLM responses is as useful as posting a "let me google that for you" link. It's a lazy response at a minimum.

It’s better than that because it includes the content - more akin to searching and putting the result you find in the comments as a guess.

The anti AI HN comments are the new anti Bitcoin - your replies are much worse than someone sharing the gpt output.

I would disagree. It's been shown recently how over-use of AI impacts cognition; "use it or lose it" mostly. I immediately ignore any "I asked ChatGPT..." comments because I do not know the prompt used, if the claims were verified by the poster, or the quality of the sources. If you want to offload your critical thinking to a black-box model, be my guest.

A google link at least allows me to verify sources and use my brain.

These aren't anti-AI comments. We're on a forum talking person to person. It is antithetical to just spout "AI said this" repeatedly when the entire point of this place is human discourse.

It's like having a group conversation in person and one member of the group contributes nothing but things they read off Google.

Hm good point. Okay, So if I may ask, What would be the more correct response imo.

Should they have searched it and kept the information to themselves? Or should they have done additional research after asking AI(like looking into its sources) and tried confirming it and actually listing us the sources of their discoveries and then disclose that they used AI.

I generally feel like they wanted to share the information but I mean :/ I'd be actually interested as to what you offer him to do actually if he was really curious and did search chatgpt.

I always feel like knowledge should be open and that just saying that knowledge out loud doesn't hurt but I do agree with your point too wholeheartedly so its nuanced imo.

I'd much rather talk to an AI than have this sort of human discourse.

From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33950747 : "...HN has never allowed bots or generated comments. If we have to, we'll add that explicitly to https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, but I'd say it already follows from the rules that are in there. ..."

Hold on, let me google a proper response to this.

Still waiting! (jk)

ChatGPT actually puts your comment’s value at about 3 cents - darn inflation!

Loved it! Oh I am more than ready to sell it for 3 cents if you want to buy. Cash or card or heck, even klarna lol ?

If they wanted you to white knight, the GP would have asked

You seem to think comment hierarchy equals a real hierarchy?

No one can contribute without the right sign off?

Seems about right. $17/ea for a qty 10 order from JLCPCB. Rises to $25/ea if you do the minimum qty 5 order.

> GPT-o3 estimates

Please don’t do this.

As someone whose own cards are around $5 each, this is more than workable if they are actually driving business.