Aside from whether it is correct in this particular case or not, it’s just bizarre to me that you would post what AI told you. It’s like you’re a booster for dead internet theory. So in addition to half the internet consisting of AIs arguing with each other, we now have to deal with people telling us what AI said.
If it's mind boggling to you I would ask chatgpt, it's mind boggling to me that you don't care whether it is correct...
But if you generally think chatGPT produces garbage, I guess that makes sense. I disagree, to me it's a good initial query, replacing google. As with google before, it is not authoritative (e.g AI may hallucinate, or google may land you on some SEO bs page), but I don't tend to dismiss its use outright.
The HN moderators have said that machine generated comments are not welcome on HN: "They're already banned—HN has never allowed bots or generated comments. If we have to, we'll add that explicitly to https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, but I'd say it already follows from the rules that are in there. We don't want canned responses from humans either! ... " (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33950747)
If I had just said, “from what I can tell after briefly researching” maybe I wouldn’t be taking so much heat on this one - the point wasn’t chatgpt, but to raise a point that hadn’t yet been raised in this discussion- what exactly is legal in this situation. But I will take the L on this one as it seemed to be received as if I was delighted to show the world I could use chatgpt lol.
And underlying all of this is a sense that maybe nobody is in the mood to explore the finer points or these terrible acts. I can accept that.
