Stackoverflow mods and power users being arseholes reduces the use of Stackoverflow. ChatGPT is just the first viable alternative.
How can it be an alternative if it needs the data from Stackoverflow?
Large language models reduce public knowledge sharing on online Q&A platforms
11–20 of 366 posts
Re: Large language models reduce public knowledge sharing on online Q&A platforms
#12It's a losing battle to try and maintain walled gardens for these corpuses of human-generated text that have become valuable to train LLMs. The horse has probably already bolted. I see this as a temporary problem however because LLMs are transitional. At some point it won't be necessary to train an LLM on the entirety of Reddit plus everything else ever written because there are obvious limits to statistical models l…
> At some point it won't be necessary to train an LLM on the entirety of Reddit plus everything else ever written because there are obvious limits to statistical models like this and, as a counter point, that's not how humans learn. You may have read hundres of books in your life, maybe even thousands. You haven't read a million. You don't need to.
I agree but I think it may be privileging the human intelligence mechanism a bit too much. These LLMs are polymaths that can spit out content at a super human rate. It can generate poetry and literature similarly to code and answers about physics and car repair. It’s very rare for a human to be able to do that especially these days.
So I agree they’re transitional but only in the sense that our brains are transitional from the basal ganglia to the neocortex. In that sense I think LLMs will probably be a part of a future GAI brain with other things tracked on, but it’s not clear it will necessarily evolve to work like a human’s brain does.
Re: Large language models reduce public knowledge sharing on online Q&A platforms
#13Don't they just reduce the Q part of Q&A? And since the Q was A-d by AI doesn't that mean that A was there already and people just couldn't find it but AI did?
The answer by humans is a) publicly accessible b) hallucination-free (although it still may not be correct) c) subject to a voting process which gives a good signal of how much we should trust it. Which makes me think, maybe a good move for Stack Overflow (which does not allow the submission of LLM-generated answers, wisely imo) would be to add an AI agent that would suggest an answer for each question, that people c…
I don't think human mistakes are distinguishable from hallucinations.
Re: Large language models reduce public knowledge sharing on online Q&A platforms
#14Well, if the users ask frequent/common questions to ChatGPT and get acceptable answers, is this even a problem? If the volume of duplicate questions decreases, there should be no bad influence on the training data, right?
[deleted]
Re: Large language models reduce public knowledge sharing on online Q&A platforms
#15If a site aims to commoditize shared expertise, royalties should be paid. Why would anyone willingly reduce their earning power, let alone hand away the right for someone else to profit from selling their knowledge, unattributed no less.
Best bet is to book publish, and require a license from anyone that wants to train on it.
Re: Large language models reduce public knowledge sharing on online Q&A platforms
#16Stackoverflow mods and power users being arseholes reduces the use of Stackoverflow. ChatGPT is just the first viable alternative.
How can it be an alternative if it needs the data from Stackoverflow?
Because consumers in every market develop models of reality (and make purchasing decisions) on the basis of their best attempts to derive accuracy from their own inevitably flawed perceptions, instead of having perfect information about every aspect of the world?
Re: Large language models reduce public knowledge sharing on online Q&A platforms
#17If a site aims to commoditize shared expertise, royalties should be paid. Why would anyone willingly reduce their earning power, let alone hand away the right for someone else to profit from selling their knowledge, unattributed no less. Best bet is to book publish, and require a license from anyone that wants to train on it.
Why open source anything, let alone with permissive licensing, right?
Re: Large language models reduce public knowledge sharing on online Q&A platforms
#18Stackoverflow mods and power users being arseholes reduces the use of Stackoverflow. ChatGPT is just the first viable alternative.
It's an interesting question. The world has had 30 years to come up with a StackOverflow alternative with friendly mods. It hasn't. So the question is that has someone tried hard enough or can it be done it the first place.
I am Stack overflow mod, dealing with other mods. There is definitely unnecessary hostility there, but most of question closes and downvotes Go 90% to low quality questiond which lack proper professionalism to warrant anyone's time. It is remaining 10% that turns off people.
We can also take analogs from the death of Usenet.
Re: Large language models reduce public knowledge sharing on online Q&A platforms
#19Stackoverflow mods and power users being arseholes reduces the use of Stackoverflow. ChatGPT is just the first viable alternative.
>Stackoverflow mods and power users being arseholes reduces the use of Stackoverflow
While they are certainly not perfect, they willingly spend their own spare time to help other peoples for free. I disagree with calling them arseholes.
Re: Large language models reduce public knowledge sharing on online Q&A platforms
#20It's a losing battle to try and maintain walled gardens for these corpuses of human-generated text that have become valuable to train LLMs. The horse has probably already bolted. I see this as a temporary problem however because LLMs are transitional. At some point it won't be necessary to train an LLM on the entirety of Reddit plus everything else ever written because there are obvious limits to statistical models l…
> At some point it won't be necessary to train an LLM on the entirety of Reddit plus everything else ever written because there are obvious limits to statistical models like this and, as a counter point, that's not how humans learn. You may have read hundres of books in your life, maybe even thousands. You haven't read a million. You don't need to. I agree but I think it may be privileging the human intelligence mech…
I think the actual reason people can't do it is that we avoid situations with high risk and no apparent reward. And we aren't sufficiently supportive of other people doing surprising things (so there's no reward for trying). I.e. it's a modern culture problem, not a human brain problem.