11–20 of 120 posts
So, this is just the beginning. What will happen next year on HN? Anyone can deploy a swarm of bots
In a nutshell, allowing AI in its current iteration will create more problems when it comes to moderation, content quality, and the sanity of sites users - pretty much.
Quite a lot of variables to find common ground on this one, but I think StackOverflow should not allow AI content for the time being.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, would you want HN to be completely overrun by bots?
HN is for chatting but SO is for storing answers. Why moderators can not de-hallicinate the answers? Probably it needs some time before SO will became the only source of autogenerated answers on SO.
Mission has been f**ing accomplished and now we will be enjoyin the xkcd dystopia: https://xkcd.com/810/
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 just go to ChatGPT/Copilot/etc... it's because of all of the commentary. People are giving different answers, arguing the pros and cons, pointing out errors... all of the discussion around a StackOverflow question is usually just as valuable as any given answer, if not more so.
Of course, I understand that AI-powered accounts that can ask/answer hundreds of questions a minute are a problem simply because moderation can't keep up with them. But StackOverflow already has a lot of limits just for human accounts -- lots of actions you can't take until you've contributed certain amounts of value. Just extend these protections to do things like rate-limiting and so forth, to ensure that the normal ratio of content submitted vs. moderated stays constant and manageable.
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-generated content is not being properly identified across the network, and that the potential for false-positives is very high. Through no fault of moderators' own, we also suspect that there have been biases for or against residents of specific countries as a potential result of the heuristics being applied to these posts. Finally, internal evidence strongly suggests that the overapplication of suspensions for AI-generated content may be turning away a large number of legitimate contributors to the site.