I have the sneaking suspicion that reddit has allowed and facilitated astroturfing for over a decade. As in, providing accounts, eliminating rate limits, artificially boosting posts and comments, and aggressively shadow banned contrary opinions. This is definitely a known phenomenon on a auto moderator level but I bet reddit ownership is complicit in it too

Not sure if serious but I don't think that's precisely it. To me, it's more that it rehashes a point until it's fully beaten to death, putting obvious aspects in a list, being subtly wrong, writing a conclusion paragraph to the previous three sentences... it's boring but not because of what it writes but, instead, how it writes it. Of course, it can also be inherently uninteresting but then you should have entered a prompt that causes the autocomplete function to ramble about something you're interested in :P

It also feels way too sanitised, like it went through some companies PR department (granted, that's because it went through openais pr department, but still)

> No one wants to read your ChatGPT outputs.

...except ChatGPT fans.

> minute to dash a note

I support this dashing recommendation.

I have sent them an email a few days ago about the state of /noobcomments.

This wasn't really a intended as an "wow, dang is sure sleeping on the job", more than an interesting observation on the new bot ecosystem.

I also feel like there's a missing discussion about the comment quality on HN lately. It feels like it's dropped like crazy. Wanted to see if I could find some hard data to show I haven't gone full Terry Davis.

Is there even an incentive to optimize for such signals, though? Em-dashes have been a known indicator of AI-generated text for a good while, and are still extremely prevalent. While someone who doesn't like AI slop and knows and what to look out for will notice and call out obvious AI comments, the unfortunate truth is that the majority of people simply cannot tell, and even among those who can, many don't care.

Obvious AI-generated posts and articles make it to the front page on a daily basis, and I get the impression that neither the average user nor the moderation team see that as a problem at all anymore.

Not so long ago, they were just a ~75%-odds tell that the user was typing on a Mac.

trying to remember what is the grammatical purpose of it when writing

trying to remember last time I used it

This is probably the time to add some invitation system like GMail had in the beginning. Or make a shade for accounts <1yr. Or something else, before things get too mixed.

I just took a look at /noobcomments and wow, there's ever a comment where a person argues with AI instead of, you know, using their own brain. It was abivous it was ai since it was formatted with markdown

I wanted to point out that em dashes are autocompleted by the iOS keyboard. So the false positives and true negatives might have some overlaps without more details. I think a better indicator would be to only detect em dashes with preceding and following whitespace characters, and general unicode usage of that user.

Additionally, lots of Chinese and Russian keyboard tools use the em dash as well, when they're switching to the alternative (en-US) layout overlay.

There's also the Chinese idiom symbol in UTF8 which gets used as a dot by those users a lot, so that could be a nice indicator for legit human users.

edit: lol @ downvotes. Must have hit a vulnerable spot, huh?

> HN has gotten absolutely innundated with bots last few months.

hm, the whole internet really, youtube, reddit, twitter, facebook, blog posts, food recipes, news articles, it's getting more and more obvious

AI post "improvements" are the most annoying thing. I see more and more people doing it, especially when posting reviews/experiences with things, and they always get called out for it. They always justify it with "AI helped me organize what I wanted to say." Like man, you're having an AI write about an experience it didn't have and likely didn't even proofread it. Who knows what BS it added to the story. Even disorganized and misspelled stories are better than AI fantasy renditions that are 20 times longer than they need to be.

I just assume if any comment sounds like an ad it's a bot. All the comments like "I'm 10x faster with Claude Opus 4.6!" or "Have you tried Codex with ChatGPT 5.X? What a time to be alive!" can be lumped in the bot bin.

> human using AI to 'improve' the quality of their comment

I want to hear people in their own voice, their own ideas, with their own words. I have no interest in reading AI generated comments with the same prose, vocabulary, and grammar.

I don't care if your writing is bad.

Additionally, I am sceptical that using AI to write comments on your behalf creates opportunities for self-improvement. I suspect this is all leading to a death of diversity in writing where comments increasingly have an aura of sameness.

I don't personally care about the distinction especially since AI usually 'improves' things by making it more verbose. Don't waste tokens to force me to read more useless words about your position - just state it plainly.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

If you are suspicious, look at comment history. It's usually fairly obvious because all comments made by LLM spambots look the same, have very similar structure and length. Skim ten of them and it becomes pretty clear if the account is genuine.

I'm more worried about how many people reply to slop and start arguing with it (usually receiving no replies — the slop machine goes to the next thread instead) when they should be flagging and reporting it; this has changed in the last few months.

I was thinking of how to create a UX around quantifying or qualifying AI use. If products revealed that users had used in-app AI to compose their responses, they might respond by doing it outside the app and pasting it in. If you then labeled pasted text as AI they might use tools to imitate typing. And after all that, you might face a user backlash from the users who rely on AI to write.