HN now has AI/LLM-enabled comment processing. Even if you don’t want to interact with the machine it will interact with you. You will eat ze bugs and you will be happy.
How is that something that defines humans? The machines break the rules as a matter of fact. It's also really a human deciding to have the machine post, they don't do anything of their own volition, so the person behind it is still the one breaking the rules, non sequitur?
I still don't see it as data point we can differentiate human-ness on.
Presumably that HN has an automated LLM-based filter to moderate rude or irrelevant comments, which is a little irrelevant to the article's wish not to see generated posts or comments, and not without its own problems besides: ML is necessary for large-scale moderation, but there are guidelines (like "don't post AI-generated text") which are IMO necessary but also just definitionally hard to enforce in an automated fashion
It's a reference to a very old meme. Where "eat the bugs" was a shorthand for the lower classes being fed bugs as a cheap source of protein. Has been re-mixed without attribution so many times that I don't know when it started, even Snowpiercer got in on it back in 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_jK9O4tEiA
I think here it's meant to imply that LLMs will be forced on the population at large as a form of social control.
That your comment and article will be subject to the ranking and processing of a machine authority and there is nothing you can do about it. So you might think you’re being flagged or shadow banned because someone downvoted you or otherwise. But no, it was an automated process that did it.
If it makes the author happier they can ask dang what is the prompt used for automated HN processing.
Comments
HN now has AI/LLM-enabled comment processing. Even if you don’t want to interact with the machine it will interact with you. You will eat ze bugs and you will be happy.
This is HN's newest guideline / rule, seems the opposite to me. Does it still happen, yes, is it as bad as 6 months ago, no.
The most human thing is posting something that breaks the rules.
How is that something that defines humans? The machines break the rules as a matter of fact. It's also really a human deciding to have the machine post, they don't do anything of their own volition, so the person behind it is still the one breaking the rules, non sequitur?
I still don't see it as data point we can differentiate human-ness on.
I don’t think they get it and I don’t think they care either way.
What do you mean by this?
Presumably that HN has an automated LLM-based filter to moderate rude or irrelevant comments, which is a little irrelevant to the article's wish not to see generated posts or comments, and not without its own problems besides: ML is necessary for large-scale moderation, but there are guidelines (like "don't post AI-generated text") which are IMO necessary but also just definitionally hard to enforce in an automated fashion
It's a reference to a very old meme. Where "eat the bugs" was a shorthand for the lower classes being fed bugs as a cheap source of protein. Has been re-mixed without attribution so many times that I don't know when it started, even Snowpiercer got in on it back in 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_jK9O4tEiA
I think here it's meant to imply that LLMs will be forced on the population at large as a form of social control.
That your comment and article will be subject to the ranking and processing of a machine authority and there is nothing you can do about it. So you might think you’re being flagged or shadow banned because someone downvoted you or otherwise. But no, it was an automated process that did it.
If it makes the author happier they can ask dang what is the prompt used for automated HN processing.