I'd be interested in seeing these guidelines updated to include "don't re-post the output of an LLM" to reduce comments of this sort.
I don't really feel like comments with LLM output as the primary substance meet the bar of "thoughtful and substantive", and (ironically, in this instance) could actually be used as good example of shallow dismissal, since you, a human, didn't actually provide an opinion or take a stance either way that I could use to begin a good-faith engagement on the topic.
My comment above serves as a covert commentary on the utility of current frontier LLMs, which imo can often generate higher-quality responses than some HN comments. (And yes, I did agree with their responses above.)
I enjoy the recursiveness of it all. Perhaps I should have said it outright.
genuinely, why is your response to being curious to ask two different LLMs to explain something to you?
the list of guidelines has 18 items in it. did you actually need them to interpret it? or is it, perhaps, you couldn’t resist a little sneering yourself?
