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.

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.

AI content = insta downzap + mute

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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.

Im not an AI. But I swear, @cryotosensei is an AI!!! LOL

I'm not the most frequent stacker but I've never seen it, can you give an example?

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.

if the OP says it's AI I don't see a problem.

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.

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.

I don’t like AI at all really. I’ll check out Undetectable.ai thanks.

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...