We're considering how to improve the way Show HNs are evaluated and presented.

Lately we've had to think deeply about exactly what has changed about Show HNs in the era of AI-generated code, and one way of thinking about it is that code-generation has basically eaten everything that used to be interesting about most Show HN posts. I.e.: What were the obstacles to making it work? What approaches did you try that didn't work? What was the breakthrough that made it work? What do you learn?

So, we need a new way of evaluating the ways in which a project may be interesting to the HN audience, and in the way project creators convey that in their post. It will take time for new conventions to emerge, but we're doing what we can to help find them.

For now, please don't post comments like this. It arguably counts as snark, a swipe, curmudgeonliness, a generic tangent, or other breaches of the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

If you think something is unfit for HN, please email us ([email protected]) and we'll take a look.

Feels like the bottleneck shifted from building to explaining what’s actually interesting about what you built.

I didn't intend it as a swipe, more as an invitation for the creator to write a comment explaining the development process.

I have no problem with people using AI to make things, even for a Show HN. I myself use AI as does I assume almost everyone on HN nowadays.

I do have a problem with if something was made entirely with AI and the OP didn't disclose that fact. I'm not saying that this OP did that, but if they don't say either way then all I can do is make my best guess, which could be wrong.

IMO it would be useful if the description on Show HN was made mandatory so that creators can introduce their projects. The days when you can just let your work speak for itself are long gone.

It’s funny… my initial reaction to your comment was that it’s a bit persnickety to expect that. However, I’m coming around to agreeing. I recently spent a non-trivial amount of time responding to a PR into one of my projects. I did have a sense it was mostly AI, but the changes were reasonable with a bit of adjustment. Wrote some feedback and guidance for the first time contributor and bam, they closed the PR, haven’t heard back.

Every Show HN should come with a disclosure detailing exactly how much compiler was used to create it.

I mean it's not that using compilers is bad, it's just that those who use them aren't real coders.

Nobody said anything about “real coders”.

But yes, people generally do not review and comment on compiled code. If your source is written by AI, why is it a surprise people might be hesitant to spend their time reviewing what it produced?

false equivalence

You had to change the end because following it through actually made total sense. You kinda pulled a trick, no doubt to convince yourself if I’m being fair to you.

It actually would have been better if I kept the end. You don't write your code, a compiler does.

You simply described what you wanted in more abstract far less specific language.

Before we were at least 2 compilation/translation steps removed from machine code, now we are 3.

I'm not sure I agree with “far less specific language”. I became interested in programming precisely because it's far more specific than human language, and yet this didn't lead to me preferring assembly code over high-level abstractions.

you’re dialectically better than this.