ChatGPT isn’t AI, I really wish people would stop calling it that. It tricks people into thinking something magical is happening. There is still only human generated content and ChatGPT scraped it.
StackOverflow petition to allow removing AI generated content
41–50 of 120 posts
Re: StackOverflow petition to allow removing AI generated content
#42Either answers are good or not. It doesn't matter if they're generated by a 13-year-old in their bedroom, someone studying CS at university, a well-respected IC at a top tech company... or an AI. If answers are good, keep them. If they're bad, downvote them. If they're redundant or off-topic or gibberish, delete them. And to those asking why you would ever want AI-generated content on StackOverflow when you could jus…
If you as an answerer uses an LLM to generate content, then verify and vet it yourself based on your own knowledge before posting, I'd think it's fine.
But spamming thousands of answers an hour automatically and wanting the community to do all the work is just not sustainable I feel. It'll also kill the sense of community if half the actors are bots.
Re: StackOverflow petition to allow removing AI generated content
#43Either answers are good or not. It doesn't matter if they're generated by a 13-year-old in their bedroom, someone studying CS at university, a well-respected IC at a top tech company... or an AI. If answers are good, keep them. If they're bad, downvote them. If they're redundant or off-topic or gibberish, delete them. And to those asking why you would ever want AI-generated content on StackOverflow when you could jus…
> If answers are good, keep them. If they're bad, downvote them. If they're redundant or off-topic or gibberish, delete them. Yeah, lets us keep providing free labor to help train somebody else's models, improve somebody else's infrastructure so that they can even more effectively dominate.
I think you missed the fact that you are mainly doing this to make other users find relevant answers, on a free website.
Or maybe you would want to pay for a version of stack overflow that is only curated by employed people ?
But I guess you would lose much content.
Re: StackOverflow petition to allow removing AI generated content
#44Before jumping to conclusions, be sure to check out this context: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/389582/what-is-the-... TL; DR - the policy is “we can’t tell if something is AI generated, so hard to justify removal on just that basis.” > We recently performed a set of analyses on the current approach to AI-generated content moderation. The conclusions of these analyses strongly indicate to us that AI-genera…
This follows from the recent case where Texas A&M students were falsely accused of using ChatGPT and subsequently failed, which caused a ton of negative publicity: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/texas-...
Re: StackOverflow petition to allow removing AI generated content
#45This just makes obvious sense.
If someone wants a GPT-generated answer, they can use ChatGPT themselves.
If I'm bothering to post my question to a forum, the social contract is that I'd like a response from a human.
Re: StackOverflow petition to allow removing AI generated content
#46What's the motivation for Stack Overflow to allow AI-generated content in the first place? These AI models were likely heavily trained on SO data, so any LLM-based answer is merely a regurgitation of thousands of human answers before it. In addition, asking a question on Stack Overflow and having some LLM respond seems to me like the equivalent of asking GPT-X.Y directly, albeit with extra steps.
There is a possibility that everything we output is merely a regurgitation of thousands of human answers, ideas, and thoughts we have encountered before. Including this comment of yours. And mine.
There's this new trend of what I'll dub techno-nihilism, which is essentially a counterargument to the stochastic parrot argument. The former being: well what if WE are stochastic parrots, after all that's how we learn, right? Well yes, but actually no.
It's trivially false because ChatGPT was trained on something (in this case, Stack Overflow), which, in turn was trained on something else (maybe a book), and so on. So knowledge, imagination, and genuine creativity must exist somewehere down that chain. Everything can't be just repeating what was learned prior ad infinitum, or we'd have nothing new. Ironically, even the development of large language models is an exercise in creativity.
Re: StackOverflow petition to allow removing AI generated content
#47Either answers are good or not. It doesn't matter if they're generated by a 13-year-old in their bedroom, someone studying CS at university, a well-respected IC at a top tech company... or an AI. If answers are good, keep them. If they're bad, downvote them. If they're redundant or off-topic or gibberish, delete them. And to those asking why you would ever want AI-generated content on StackOverflow when you could jus…
> If answers are good, keep them. If they're bad, downvote them. If they're redundant or off-topic or gibberish, delete them. Yeah, lets us keep providing free labor to help train somebody else's models, improve somebody else's infrastructure so that they can even more effectively dominate.
How is that any different than providing free labor to help someone learn how to build the next [X] so that they can more effectively dominate?
But more importantly banning AI generated content from Stack Overflow doesn’t solve the “problem” you’re describing.
Re: StackOverflow petition to allow removing AI generated content
#48Either answers are good or not. It doesn't matter if they're generated by a 13-year-old in their bedroom, someone studying CS at university, a well-respected IC at a top tech company... or an AI. If answers are good, keep them. If they're bad, downvote them. If they're redundant or off-topic or gibberish, delete them. And to those asking why you would ever want AI-generated content on StackOverflow when you could jus…
Agreed. I have found myself sometimes asking Chat-GPT for guidance related to obscure error messages and occasionally its more useful than google or stack overflow.
When it doesn’t hallucinate, which in my case it’s most of the time.
Re: StackOverflow petition to allow removing AI generated content
#49What's the motivation for Stack Overflow to allow AI-generated content in the first place? These AI models were likely heavily trained on SO data, so any LLM-based answer is merely a regurgitation of thousands of human answers before it. In addition, asking a question on Stack Overflow and having some LLM respond seems to me like the equivalent of asking GPT-X.Y directly, albeit with extra steps.
There is a possibility that everything we output is merely a regurgitation of thousands of human answers, ideas, and thoughts we have encountered before. Including this comment of yours. And mine.
A possibility that every idea necessary to put the James Webb Space Telescope in place and analyse the data it collects from the universe's earliest and most distant galaxies was already present thousands of years ago, in fact must have somehow been built in to the first humans? I don't think there is.
Re: StackOverflow petition to allow removing AI generated content
#50Anyone around who moderators on SO? Is there a general sense of alienation from corporate SO?
My understanding is that in the early days, a lot of the devs at SO were actually recruited from the SO and Meta moderation userbase but probably that doesn't scale.
Example:
Ben: And then, April 29th, I was, again, sitting in the agency, doing my thing, and I also had my personal email open, and I suddenly got an email from Jeff Atwood.
But it said, “Who should work for Stack Overflow?” That was the subject line, and then the body of the message said, “You should,” and that was basically it.
And that was kind of like this jaw-dropping thing, because from that moment on, it was this, “Okay, maybe the skill that I have is actually marketable,” kind of moment.