[dredmorbius]

That's antithetical to how HN has operated in the past. Vouching for deads is fair when the account is an actual human, and happens to post valid content. I do this occasionally myself (I read with "showdead" on), though not especially often.

See, e.g., <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31525284> also the FAQ: <https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#cvouch>.

Accounts killed for spamming AI content seem to me to violate that premise, and an unvouchable kill does seem appropriate, especially where it's not immediately evident to the casual reader that an account was killed for posting AI content.

I'm thinking of how I'd like to indicate such accounts myself, and am leaning toward adding a robot emogi via an ":after" CSS rule.

[em-bee]

i think we are actually agreeing. i am not talking about making kills unvouchable in general but i am suggesting how an unvouchable kill could be implemented without to much effort. the unvouchable kill should of course be only applied to appropriate cases, it's not meant to replace the regular kill.

[dredmorbius]

Yes, we are in agreement here. I was simply noting what HN's past policy and rationale have been.

LLMs change the calculus somewhat in making automated bot-posting far more viable. It's clearly already a problem. I suspect that moderation policies will have to adapt to this. There's also the fact that such a change would make AI-banned discernable from normal bans, in that AI-banned accounts would not have vouchable comments. If explicitly noting AI banning isn't adopted on the basis that this would provide information to either the AI or its operator of the fact / nature of the banning, the absence of a vouch option would reveal the fact regardless.

(A relatively small example of changes we'll see induced by LLMs in the larger world as well. Interesting times....)