Please cite your source for the supposed HN policy. I sometimes answer nonlawyers' questions about how the law works; my answers often attract upvotes. If purists insist on downvoting AI-assisted answers, I can live with that.
> If purists insist on downvoting AI-assisted answers, I can live with that.
I'm no purist. I have seen AI comments that have genuinely been helpful on here, so I don't know what else to say, other than that I also have had to accept that sometimes HN doesn't roll the way I'd like either, but it's still the best place to post online the vast majority of the time.
To your original point:
> I see no reason to spend non-billable time writing an evanescent answer to a very-general question. Perplexity did a quite-serviceable job in just a few seconds.
I don't think posting on HN is meant to be measured in time, but in impact. I don't come here to read AI comments, but human comments. I'd wager the same is true of nearly everyone here, including you.
