> then the beholder is trusting not just the correctness of that one sentence but all of the experiences and insights from the author.

This implies they know the author and can trust them. If they don't know the author then there is no trust to break and they are only relying on the collective intelligence which could be reflected by the AI.

That is to say that trusting a known human author is very different from trusting any human author and trusting any human author is not that much different from trusting an AI.

For all you know that LLM could've indeed actually run an actual Redis, given the increasing use of AI agents for digital infrastructure provisioning.

> then the beholder is trusting not just the correctness of that one sentence but all of the experiences and insights from the author.

This is my point.

There is no sane endgame here that doesn't end up with each user effectively declaring who they do and don't care to hear, and possibly transitively extend that relationship n steps into the graph. For example you might trust all humans vetted by the German government but distrust HN commenters.

For now HN and others are free to do as they will (and the current AI situation has been intolerable), however, I suspect in the near future governments will attempt to impose their own version of it on to ever less significant forums, and as a tech community we need to be thinking more clearly about where this goes before we lose all choice in the matter.