The other important thing you can do is have an AI check your claims before you post. Even with google and pubmed, a quick check against sources by hand can take 30 minutes or longer, while with AI tooling it takes 5. Guess which one is more likely to actually lead to people checking their facts before they post. (even if imperfectly!) .

I'm not talking about people who lazily ask the AI to write their post for them. Or those who don't actually go through and actually get the AI to find primary sources. Those people are not being as helpful. Though try consider educating them on more responsible tool use as well?

AI is a general purpose tool. People will use AI for multiple reasons, including yours. I'll wager, though, that your use case is much more challenging to do than mine, and that my use case will dominate in number.

> HN is more like talking than writing.

Says you. Many disagree.

> And LLMs don't help you write well, they help you sound like a clone, which is unwanted.

Patently false on both counts. Sorry, you're cherry picking and not addressing the part of my comment that discusses this.

> Imagine if your friend AI-edited their speech in real-time as they talked to you.

When a conversation is heated (as it occasionally is on HN), I actually would rather he AI-edit in real time - provided that the output reflects what he intended.