So was distributing commercial software over the Internet, which was my point. And I got flamed for that, too. ;)
I at least tried to find original sources first, included the ones I did find, fact checked and edited ChatGPT's output, and disclosed its use. What more do you want, that information to be lost, or people not to disclose ChatGPT's use to avoid being flamed for violating netiquette? Is it prohibited by HN guidelines? Should it be?
Is posting working code partially written by ChatGPT that solves a problem and has been checked and tested also a violation of netiquette? Where is the line? Or does it move over time?
Sounds like an interesting topic for an HN discussion to me...
Sounds like an interesting topic for an HN discussion to me...
It's a mostly settled topic for now, you can find many moderation comments about it - don't use generated content in comments. The problem is that the overwhelming majority of LLM generated comments are not checked for accuracy, they're just random summaries of articles or unverified pastes of whatever the model spat out in response to a prompt. Even though you're trying to do this 'right' - checking and/or editing the output, disclosing the LLM use for the relevant part of the comment, etc - it's too difficult for anyone to tell the difference.
I at least tried to find original sources first, included the ones I did find, fact checked and edited ChatGPT's output, and disclosed its use. What more do you want, that information to be lost, or people not to disclose ChatGPT's use to avoid being flamed for violating netiquette? Is it prohibited by HN guidelines? Should it be?
Is posting working code partially written by ChatGPT that solves a problem and has been checked and tested also a violation of netiquette? Where is the line? Or does it move over time?
Sounds like an interesting topic for an HN discussion to me...