People latch onto the word "delve" or an em-dash or the idiom of "it's not X it's Y" as being proof that something was written by AI, without ever considering that AI is largely just writing in the style of how internet commenters write since that's a lot of the training data.

Now we've got students re-writing their homework to avoid looking like AI and commenters self-censoring against words and phrases that trigger AI suspicion.

I'm deeply skeptical that people can correctly identify human-written vs latest AI model written HN comments with sufficient accuracy.

> What does [flagged] mean?

> Users flagged the post as breaking the guidelines or otherwise not belonging on HN.

I'd favor having a second type of tag, for submissions, which meant "the linked article is of low quality". Doesn't matter to me whether it's AI slop, or press release puffery, or tedious drivel, or by a painfully unqualified author, or something else.

HN and YouTube are basically the only sites I still use. I disabled my watch history on YouTube to kill the recommendations page to get away from a lot of the trash and just focus on my subscriptions. I’ll be unsubscribing to those writing scripts with AI as well, as I notice them.

I’d like to be able to flag things as AI slop on YouTube, so the person gets that feedback and can hopefully get back on the right track. On here, I’m not so sure if that type of reinforcement will matter, or if will be more obvious to the person why a post was flagged.

That way if it's AI slop it'll say [AI slop], if it's spam it'll say [Spam], if it's dubiously legal/illegal content it'll say that, etc?

You could use that to decide if you want to give the submission a chance or not.