Agreed it is confusing and as I mentioned earlier in a different comment, it made sense in my head reading it until someone else pointed it out. Looks like they've amended it to make it clear.
It's not their point as stated in the description, but it is the point inferred from the title alone. "How much of Hacker News is about AI?" would have been better.
Would there be some way to see what percentage of the front page meets those qualifications? I don't browse /new very often, so I have less of an idea of how representative that is. It would be interesting to see if they trend similarly.
Yeah, that's probably the main limitation right now. This is measuring /new, so it's every submission rather than just the stuff that makes the front page.
lcamtuf's survey (linked in the footer) was looking at the front page, and the number there was quite a bit higher. So there's likely some effect from voting, although I haven't dug into that yet.
I think Algolia has a way to filter for front-page stories, which should make it pretty easy to add. I haven't tested that yet though but will certainly look into it!
I have mixed feelings about it, honestly. I may be biased because AI is my job but in my case specifically, when it comes to posting on social media AI really helps me communicating better what I'm trying to communicate without that feeling of i-forgot-to-write-that. If this makes sense . But I understand that people is probably overreacting because of the huge amount of nonsense stuff that is being posted nowadays by some people who really abuse it to farm visuals
Multiple times authors have been asked about AI usage on HN, because readers (rightfully) suspected it was AI written. I don't have a problem with AI written articles, or assisted.
But then the authors lie or make ludicrous excuses for why their article "sounds" like AI. Then I check with Pangram and yep. It is completely AI written.
You get a few free checks on Pangram each day or so. Just start checking and encourage people to be honest.
AI has its place. Lying about it and misrepresenting it makes everyone dislike AI more, even as they use it themselves.
> Then I check with Pangram and yep. It is completely AI written.
“AI detectors” do NOT work reliably.
Even humans who are ever-so-certain about being able to identify AI usage constantly embarrass themselves when that claimed ability is put to the test. Look up “AI Monet Instagram” for a social experiment where hundreds of cocksure users pointed out “AI signs” in what was claimed to be an AI-generated painting in the style of Monet, but was actually a genuine Monet.
This reminds me of the Hank Green incident, when he said, "I appreciate the pushback". If you watch that 14 second clip, anyone who uses AI will notice that. But watching the whole video, the context makes sense.
But that didn't matter to most folks who just heard those 14 seconds and assumed that he was reading an ai script with chat residue left inside.
Pass enough of someone's work through one, such as Pangram with a low FPR, and you can gain confidence.
Add in your own intuition plus multiple scans of someone's work, plus any weird claims they make, and you can raise the certainy bar.
There is room for error, but come on. To say they don't work at all and you can't combine multiple methods to come to reasonable conclusions?
I'll accept it is with fault. The problem could be alleviated if people just were honest about the use of generative AI usage and others didn't judge so harshly the use rather than the outcome.
I said at the start I don't care if it was used. I just want honesty.
Are you willing to take responsibility for accusations you make based on snake oil technology?
That is, if you claim that something posted by someone else is written by AI, and that turns out to not be the case, do you accept that others have the right to call you a liar and a fraud?
Or is it that when you say “I just want honesty”, you really mean “I just want to be able to throw around accusations of AI usage based on my hunches and a number displayed on a website”?
The Show HN volume went 805/month to 4,199/month over that same time period, so from 3.2% of all submissions to 13.4%, while HN overall only grew 1.3x.
So the flat ~24% held through a 5x expansion in the denominator, which makes it
a lot more interesting honestly.
Every technical topic involves AI now. Even if it's about why the ancient Greeks didn't turn their steam engines to industrial use - the AI's should be researching the details. We might as well ask which topics involve humans or use language.
Not a bad idea. I'd look at creating a separate page for embeddings. Crypto and NFT's would be the next best candidates to add. Something for me to work on over time.
Several people have asked for this already, so I'll add it to my to-do list. I just want to be careful about flagging posts that appear to be written by AI. Perhaps I set certain thresholds of certainty to filter by. What I have currently is easily verified and matched by the words we are filtering for.
It is also interesting to note that I have already received 5 AI written emails to the email I linked in the footer.
An estimated 2,000 articles per month at 2,000 words per article would result in 4,000,000 words, which costs either $200 or $2000 to process at Pangram [1]. It might make life a lot more enjoyable for many users here, though.
Something to maybe track later would be /newcomments, but that would only grab the most obvious comments. People can certainly direct an AI to write in a style that sounds human, but I'm sure it'll still catch a fair amount.
If you read a lot, you start to get a feel for phone typos vs AI hiccups. I can guarantee that is post was made by a brain designed to eat berries in a cave. Almost all the another posts look a bit scary.
I think I misunderstood - how many posts were about AI vs how many posts were written by AI.
Thanks for the cool project!
lcamtuf's survey (linked in the footer) was looking at the front page, and the number there was quite a bit higher. So there's likely some effect from voting, although I haven't dug into that yet.
I think Algolia has a way to filter for front-page stories, which should make it pretty easy to add. I haven't tested that yet though but will certainly look into it!
But then the authors lie or make ludicrous excuses for why their article "sounds" like AI. Then I check with Pangram and yep. It is completely AI written.
You get a few free checks on Pangram each day or so. Just start checking and encourage people to be honest.
AI has its place. Lying about it and misrepresenting it makes everyone dislike AI more, even as they use it themselves.
“AI detectors” do NOT work reliably.
Even humans who are ever-so-certain about being able to identify AI usage constantly embarrass themselves when that claimed ability is put to the test. Look up “AI Monet Instagram” for a social experiment where hundreds of cocksure users pointed out “AI signs” in what was claimed to be an AI-generated painting in the style of Monet, but was actually a genuine Monet.
Pass enough of someone's work through one, such as Pangram with a low FPR, and you can gain confidence.
Add in your own intuition plus multiple scans of someone's work, plus any weird claims they make, and you can raise the certainy bar.
There is room for error, but come on. To say they don't work at all and you can't combine multiple methods to come to reasonable conclusions?
I'll accept it is with fault. The problem could be alleviated if people just were honest about the use of generative AI usage and others didn't judge so harshly the use rather than the outcome.
I said at the start I don't care if it was used. I just want honesty.
That is, if you claim that something posted by someone else is written by AI, and that turns out to not be the case, do you accept that others have the right to call you a liar and a fraud?
Or is it that when you say “I just want honesty”, you really mean “I just want to be able to throw around accusations of AI usage based on my hunches and a number displayed on a website”?
If you see:
- ALL CAPS subheaders
- a light beige background
- burnt sienna anchor and/or highlight text
- a "• LIVE" (or really any pulsing • symbol with an ALL CAPS follow-up)
- tons of variation in font sizes (this one has 15 different text sizes!)
- more typically, a lot of overexplaining
...you know it's vibe'd, specifically with Claude!
It is also interesting to note that I have already received 5 AI written emails to the email I linked in the footer.
[1] https://www.pangram.com/pricing?category=developers
How Much of HN is AI? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49435728
I think I misunderstood - how many posts were about AI vs how many posts were written by AI.
I obviously am suffering from berry fog.