Oof. This comment originally had an introduction attributing the summary to Claude and immediately got downvoted to oblivion. Now it's been edited to remove the attribution and it's resurrected (edit: gone again, so ignore me).
I’ve begged dang to specifically say that generated comments are against HN guidelines in the guidelines themselves, but as it stands, it’s still against guidelines, but only communicated in comments. I warned about the perverse incentives as well. It’s a pretty subpar status quo.
I was not aware of the policy. My intent was to save people having to read the many pages when they just want a summary of the facts (and I don’t think most people necessarily have a quick way to summarize so it seemed like it would be useful - in fact there’s another person who I guess innocently posted a similar summary..). I also agree it would be useful for this to be an explicit policy. Anyway, now I know…
Even without the attribution, it was still pretty clear to me that it was a chatbot-generated summary. No human who understands how the legal procedure works would introduce the summary in that way, as the court order is the preliminary injunction.
