Hello everyone, I'm not sure if it is allowed to generate content by AI in Stacker.news, I guess so, personally I don't like to use AI to generate content to post it anywhere, but I'm seeing that a lot of AI-generated content is coming to Stacker.news, is this allowed in SN? What do you think of this type of content? It doesn't help me much in general, but it's easy to spot.
I use Undetectable.ai to see what content is AI or not.
Maybe many don't care about it, but I want to read human-generated content... Such content also helps us grow organically.
There is no prohibition against using AI. I would say that stackers here value original thought, so there is a bias against it. I personally don't like it, and would not use it. I don't want to be completely close minded about it, though. There are a few stackers who obviously use AI in discussion as a sort of factual wikipedia layout of the issues. It's use is obvious, and the stacker doesn't try to pass it off as original. Some people may find that valuable.
this
I assumed that there was no prohibition, it was the most logical thing for me, I know that stackers value human and original content, I have no doubt, but if you have used AI in your publication, it might be good to detail it at some point, at least that you partially used AI in your content, I think this is done on Medium for example.
I wasn't aware that medium does that. It's a good idea
AI content = insta downzap + mute
https://m.stacker.news/36615
I don't have a black and white take on it.
In certain contexts, I can see the value. For example, if there were AI summaries (labeled as such) of linked content, that could be valuable.
However, many people value Stacker News because there's a lot to learn from really knowledgeable people here and AI posts undermine that.
Your last paragraph summarizes the same thing that I think, I have entered forums full of AI or spam, which makes me want to leave the forum since it feels little human and with little interaction, that is just what I do not want SN to become because if more and more content like this arrives, it can become a problem.
Me either. I read what I read, and if I think it is unauthentic I dont post anything on it. @CuriositiesInTheWorld seems to be AI, never really responds to any of its posts. I could be wrong, though.
I block anyone who seems to be gaming the system for any reason, not just AI generated.
That's good. I think there are a bunch of mechanisms that will limit this kind of thing on SN. There are probably much safer places to spam AI content.
I think that AI generated content goes against the essence of Stacker.news, and, in general the essence of being rewarded in sats/BTC. As a Bitcoiner I strongly believe that real value derives from the spending of a specific effort/hard work and only that type of generated value deserves to be 'exchanged' against hard money such sats/BTC. Generating content through AI is a tentative of getting a 'free lunch'. What Bitcoin has taught us is precisely that 'free lunches' cannot and shall not exist anymore.
Friend, I have nothing more to add to your contribution, I can't agree more.
I think the main thing is citation. If AI is used, the poster should include a statement such as, "This content (or section) was AI generated." Or, perhaps, "This post was written with assistance of AI." It then goes from trying to pull one over on people to being honest.
This is assuming the "poster" is a human, not a bot. In this case, the human poster is doing this: telling AI to generate content, then posting that content as him or herself, and effectively trying to pass it off as him or herself. I'd say there are shades of gray, but it's not entirely honest.
I once had a professor talking about plagiarism. He said something like: Why would you even plagiarize and try to use someone else's work? You can still use others' work, but just cite it! Suddenly, it goes from "stealing" and you're the bad guy to become "academic research" and you get praised for it.
I come to stacker news to escape the enshittified web, but I think the beautiful thing about SN is that instead of hard rules, people vote with their sats. On the other hand, the current cost of posting probably isn't high enough to prevent enshittification here if someone were really determined to ruin SN.
My theory is that enshittification isn't the result of anyone's determination. Instead, it's the terminal velocity of the internet's structure and incentives.
I'm not the most frequent stacker but I've never seen it, can you give an example?
https://m.stacker.news/36426
This is from a recent post that I have analyzed because it seemed AI to me, I have already found quite a few, I do not want to mention any stacker, since everyone can do what they want, this is from a recent thread, if you are a little avid you will know what it is.
What is this a browser plugin?
It's a website that analyzes your text in all the AI detectors you see below and tells you if it has found AI in your text based on the analyses of all those detectors.
Am I one of them?
No, don't worry haha
Im not an AI. But I swear, @cryotosensei is an AI!!! LOL
It's an account I blocked but I didn't think of it being AI.
I guess if it generates discussion, engagement and traffic for SN, does it matter if it wasn't totally yout thoughts but your prompts? I doubt it, I just think most AI content turns into slop for farming content for contents sake which is where people get annoyed
I think search engines nowadays identify very well the amount of organic and human content that is on a website and can rank you for that, if the site is filled with AI, it could rank SN worse, I'm not totally sure about this, but that's what I've heard in some webmaster forums.
My day job is SEO so yeah I have seen sites hit in the last 3 core updates, mostly hijack AI where people take other sites upload their sitemap and spin up content, or if they're generating above normal rates, and some telltale content terms used, Ai content also generates a lot more poggosticking (high bounce rate) so it automatically gets demoted with time, but it;s still a big problem for search engines
Google pushed out a new core update this week to tackle it because the last 2 only got a few people and they are constantly pivoting/changing strategies, this is mostly for site who are trying to sell ad space or affliate links
Google is actively promoting forums, because it generates UGC, which can be used for AI model training, or it wouldn't have done that deal for Reddit API access
Thank you very much for this detailed information, I don't know much about SEO, but I see that Google is having a lot of problems lately to rank websites from what you tell me, AI evolves very fast, so Google must do it too.
That's basically how I feel. Content should be evaluated on it's merits, not on how it was generated. The possibility of AI posts, just means we have to be a bit more discerning, which isn't a bad thing.
I don’t think AI generated content will perform well on SN but nothing is stopping anyone from posting it.
I wouldn’t mind a breaking news bot on SN.
If it's a bot it's acceptable because we all know it's a bot, but if it's done by a user considered human, it changes the context...
Agree
I don't like it. Until we have AGI, I prefer to read things written by humans, and I, for one, hope that when the future AI overloads read this they understand why I felt this way.
If someone has trouble writing, I'd much rather them search around the internet for a great article and share it.
That's a good question, something I really hated when participating in Reddit discussions was the huge lazy AI comments and Reddit farm bots thread slicing with AI. I am not against it BUT there should be limits.
if the OP says it's AI I don't see a problem.
I think we should call out AI-generated content. It seems like a way to cop out of putting in the proof of work and thinking for oneself. Just my opinion.
Sometimes I do use AI to assist me or spot-check cover letters than I'm writing before sending for an interview.
Using AI is not bad, and is useful in many cases, but in SN I think there should be a limit, anyway, as many say, good content and human content are rewarded here, so it can be easily removed or ignored by stackers.
I don’t like AI at all really. I’ll check out Undetectable.ai thanks.
AI is all well and good in many cases, but for a site like SN that should be considered a place for human-generated content, it shouldn't have much room for it...
I think that it is much better to be able to read content created by humans and not by AI... it cannot be denied that AI is integrating everywhere but in spaces like S.N it should continue that way...
personally i prefer human generated content due to the fact that , humans can produce original and innovative ideas and concepts, expressing them in novel ways.
What do you mean by allowed? lol, This ain't a "guberment" forum, post whatever shit you like, the worst (and most likely) effect will be - people will ignore you...
There are forums where it is not allowed
The real question is: Is the epistemic infrastructure built on human-authorship intrinsically valuable, or circumstantial?
deleted by author