Edited. But why you so against being AI than making an argument to that? At least the AI is showing up what’s inaccurate and most comments get it wrong.
The grandparent comment isn't "against AI" - it's against low-effort participation. When you paste raw AI output without even reading it critically, you're essentially saying "I care so little about this discussion that I won't spend 60 seconds engaging with it myself."
You ask why we should care whether it's AI-generated. Here's why: unedited AI responses often contain hallucinations, miss context from the thread, and make arguments the poster doesn't actually understand or stand behind. When challenged, can you defend the points "you" made? Do you even know what they are?
More fundamentally, forums like HN are built on human discourse - people sharing their knowledge, experience, and perspectives. When you automate your participation, you're taking from the community (reading others' contributions) while giving nothing of yourself back. You're treating other humans as if they exist to process your LLM's output.
If a topic matters enough to you to hit "reply," it should matter enough to formulate your own response. If it doesn't, just move on. Nobody benefits from discussions cluttered with unvetted AI text from people who couldn't be bothered to engage.
>At least the AI is showing up what’s inaccurate and most comments get it wrong.
And we know AI is right, how?
Many folks don't like these AI comments because we're all awash in AI, all day every day. The search results, blogs, news, ads, everything is seriously tilting AI, and it can be dull. I could easily ask ChatGPT or Claude the same thing you did. But a definitely human-written comment, warts and errors and all, can be more interesting.
