Ask HN: Add flag for AI-generated articles

Ask HN：是否应为 AI 生成的文章添加标记？

Should HN add the ability to flag articles as AI-generated? This doesn’t have to act as a regular flag, i.e., it won’t de-rank the article; it could just show up as an indicator, allowing others (like myself) who don’t like reading AI-generated text, to skip it. Hacker News 是否应该增加将文章标记为“AI 生成”的功能？这不必作为常规的举报标记（即不会降低文章的排名）；它只需作为一个指示器显示出来，让那些（像我一样）不喜欢阅读 AI 生成文本的人可以选择跳过。

Open questions:

Why is the regular voting system not enough?
Should HN change in response to the gen AI era? It has been successful not changing fundamentals. 开放性问题：
为什么常规的投票系统还不够？
HN 是否应该为了应对生成式 AI 时代而做出改变？毕竟它在不改变基本原则的情况下一直很成功。

dang: We don’t allow genai text on HN itself - see guidelines. How to enforce it is a separate question, of course, but the rule exists. dang： 我们不允许在 HN 本身使用生成式 AI 文本——请参阅社区准则。当然，如何执行是另一个问题，但规则确实存在。

We don’t have a similar rule yet about article content but my sense is that the community mostly doesn’t want to read it—or, to put it more conservatively, discounts it. This is why we see so many “just show me the prompt” responses. I built that list so I have something to send to users who email about why their genai articles got flagged. 我们目前还没有针对文章内容的类似规则，但我的感觉是，社区大多不想阅读这类内容——或者保守地说，会对其价值打折扣。这就是为什么我们看到那么多“直接把提示词（prompt）给我看”的回复。我整理了那个列表，以便在用户发邮件询问为什么他们的 AI 文章被标记时，能有东西回复他们。

It’s a fascinating arms race right now: the AIs are training on the humans but the human hivemind is also training on the AIs. Readers are developing allergic sensitivities to language that sounds like an LLM produced it. The AIs will adapt to this, but the humans will adapt in turn. Where it ends up is anyone’s guess. 这真是一场引人入胜的军备竞赛：AI 在向人类学习，而人类的集体智慧也在学习如何识别 AI。读者们正在对听起来像大语言模型生成的语言产生“过敏反应”。AI 会适应这一点，但人类也会随之进化。最终结果如何，谁也说不准。

For the present, there is an emerging class distinction between writing (and writers) that use genai vs. writing that does not. As soon as the “this sounds like an LLM” allergy kicks in, the writing instantly gets relegated to a low-status bucket in the reader’s mind. That doesn’t mean it won’t still get looked at - but it is now under a stigma. 目前，使用生成式 AI 的写作（及作者）与不使用 AI 的写作之间，正在出现一种阶级区分。一旦“这听起来像 LLM”的过敏反应出现，这些文章在读者心中瞬间就会被归入低端类别。这并不意味着没人看，但它现在带上了一种污名。

This has the happy flipside that anyone who would like readers to classify their article as high-status rather than low-status can apply the judo move of simply writing it themselves. 这也有一个积极的侧面：任何希望读者将其文章视为“高端”而非“低端”的人，只需运用“柔道技巧”——亲自动手写出来即可。

Now I need to add the disclaimer that none of this is a dismissal of LLM technology per se. We rely on it heavily, and there’s no question that it’s useful. The question is how to use it and whether one should use it on writing that one publishes to other humans. 我需要补充声明，以上内容并非否定 LLM 技术本身。我们非常依赖它，毫无疑问它很有用。问题在于如何使用它，以及是否应该在发布给其他人类阅读的文章中使用它。

To turn to OP’s questions: Flagging-as-just-an-indicator would be tagging, which we’ve always resisted adding to HN, but I wouldn’t rule it out. What I do think we’ll (finally) add is a “please give a reason why you flagged this post” step, and “because I think it’s genai” will be one choice among several. 回到楼主的问题：仅作为指示器的标记本质上就是“标签（tagging）”，我们一直抵制在 HN 上添加标签，但我不会完全排除这种可能性。但我认为我们（最终）会添加一个“请说明举报此帖的原因”步骤，而“因为我认为它是 AI 生成的”将成为多个选项之一。

grayclhn: I think classifying it as an allergy or a status thing is a little too glib. My biggest issue is that it’s impossible to engage with and give feedback on an AI written document, because it’s impossible to know whether misconceptions or gaps are because the author doesn’t understand the material deeply enough or the author does but the AI doesn’t and the author’s not proofreading carefully enough. grayclhn： 我认为将其归类为“过敏”或“地位问题”有点过于轻率了。我最大的问题在于，无法与 AI 撰写的文档进行互动并提供反馈，因为你无法判断其中的误解或漏洞，是因为作者对材料理解不够深，还是作者理解了但 AI 没理解，亦或是作者没有仔细校对。

Hackernews isn’t work, obviously, but “it’s impossible to engage deeper with the material because the author doesn’t really exist” is sort of a problem for a discussion site. If the human coauthor puts in enough work, they can make sure the doc really reflects their views and their understanding, but in my experience that’s much less common. 显然，Hacker News 不是工作场所，但“因为作者并不真正存在，所以无法与材料进行深入交流”对于一个讨论型网站来说确实是个问题。如果人类合著者投入足够多的精力，他们可以确保文档真实反映其观点和理解，但根据我的经验，这种情况并不多见。

tripzilch: This exactly. Whenever someone shows me their AI-assisted-coded thing, I can only ever engage with it on a very superficial level, saying “oh cool”. You can’t have a discussion about it, how it was done, because for 80% of cases it’s “the AI did it”. I don’t think this is that interesting or useful for HN, because indeed it’s a discussion site. tripzilch： 正是如此。每当有人向我展示他们用 AI 辅助编写的代码时，我只能在非常肤浅的层面上进行互动，说一句“哦，酷”。你无法就它是如何完成的进行讨论，因为 80% 的情况下答案都是“AI 做的”。我不认为这对 HN 有什么意思或价值，因为这毕竟是一个讨论网站。

It would be different if the thing didn’t come as a “look what it made” but instead as a human written blog article about “how I made this thing using AI, what models, prompts and harnesses, how the experience was etc.” --- again that would be something interesting to have a discussion about. 如果展示的内容不是“看它做了什么”，而是人类撰写的博客文章，讲述“我是如何使用 AI 完成这个项目的，用了什么模型、提示词和框架，体验如何等等”——那将是值得讨论的话题。