Thread

ChatGPT now knows what you do on other websites via ad collector

764 points · 395 comments · lmbbuchodi

duhhhhh1212 · 1789937289 · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.pangram.com/history/c3ad864f-2a50-4785-a0ef-71f289ec003f?ucc=t8c6BkzVOh8" rel="nofollow">https://www.pangram.com/history/c3ad864f-2a50-4785-a0ef-71f2...
why not use your own words? If you are gonna ai generate this blog, just post the prompts instead.
1. ljm · 1789939436 · focus · HN ↗
  Why would you want n people to compute an AI prompt independently instead of reading the output once? And why would that be better?
  At least criticise the article on merit and not some 'let me google that for you' high horse. If it's slop it's slop, but let the votes speak for that.
  1. scared_together · 1789940517 · focus · HN ↗
    Not everyone would actually send the prompt to an LLM. Some would have the opportunity to see the prompt as its own artifact, devoid of LLM-generated “hallucinations”.
    > let the votes speak for that.
    The comment you are replying to got a fair number of votes too… Having somebody run a Pangram check saves n people the trouble of doing the same.
    ljm · 1789943152 · focus · HN ↗
    I said this in another comment, but an AI blog author is never going to reveal their 'source' that way. Mostly because it'd be a rubbish prompt or one that is loaded with a predetermined conclusion.
    I think you have to take the output as read and decide accordingly. If it looks like low effort AI writing then it's not much better than spam.
    I think the the top-voted post being all about the provenance of the article says something about where HN's voting mentality lies - we are not prioritising the substance of the post but how it was produced.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.