31–40 of 366 posts
Stackoverflow mods and power users being arseholes reduces the use of Stackoverflow. ChatGPT is just the first viable alternative.
Except of course that reading Stackoverflow directly has better retention rates, better explanations and more in-depth discussions.
(My view is that moderators can be annoying but the issue is overblown.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To a degree, yes. I only open source work where I expect reciprocal value from other contributions.
I think that is antithetical to the idea of Open Source. If you expect contributions then pay a bounty, don't pretend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To a degree, yes. I only open source work where I expect reciprocal value from other contributions.
I think that is antithetical to the idea of Open Source. If you expect contributions then pay a bounty, don't pretend.
If 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.
Of course people reduce their free contributions to Stackoverflow. Stackoverflow is selling then out with the OpenAI API agreement and countless "AI" hype blog posts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
As a user, why would I care whether an answer is "incorrect" or "hallucinated"? Neither one is going to solve the problem I have at hand. It sounds like a distinction without a difference.
Half joking, but I am pretty tired of SO pedantry.
I am active in a few specialized fields and already I have to defined my advice against poorly crafted prompt responses.
Then also have agents that automatically give upvotes for used solutions. Weird world.
I’m just imagining the precogs talking to each other in Minority Report if that makes sense.