Timeline for Policy: Generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT) is banned
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 18 at 0:21 | comment | added | whatistruth | that's what i had in mind too. chatgpt or other gpts are literally free. | |
| Jan 21, 2024 at 11:47 | comment | added | chiliNUT | @ChatGPT "GPT answers are not substantially worse than the avg SO user" incorrect and baseless | |
| Dec 11, 2023 at 20:18 | comment | added | Peter Mortensen | @ChatGPT: Re "Quora also stands to be disrupted by SO": Don't you mean "SO also stands to be disrupted by Quora"? | |
| Dec 11, 2023 at 10:56 | history | rollback | YungDeiza |
Rollback to Revision 1
|
|
| Dec 9, 2023 at 3:35 | history | edited | cottontail | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
wording
|
| Nov 6, 2023 at 15:33 | comment | added | marek_schwifty | @ChatGPT That would turn this site into a free finetuning material vetted by humans, and that's perhaps for a different forum. Why should you care then if StackOveflow survives? Simply come up with another forum. | |
| May 21, 2023 at 11:42 | comment | added | maxhodges | perhaps implement a voting system so that the community and sort them to the top. > "we don't want to have to wade through a lot of noise to find the useful answer. " | |
| Mar 31, 2023 at 22:00 | comment | added | Technophile | @ChatGPT the issue is signal to noise: we don't want to have to wade through a lot of noise to find the useful answer. Re "not substantially worse than the avg SO user": (1) that's an interesting bar to set. (2) how would you go about proving your assertion? (3) the goal isn't "not substantially worse"; it's accurate and useful. | |
| Mar 26, 2023 at 18:19 | comment | added | Stefan | Not only that, but this applies to any computer-generated answer. SO should be for questions that search engines and other automated tools can't answer satisfactorily. Rather than post a machine-generated answer, the better answer might be to point out that "You can find the answer at DuckDuckGo/Bard/ChatGPT/perplexity.ai/..." | |
| Jan 26, 2023 at 5:21 | comment | added | matt6frey | I agree with you. I think if somebody is using chat GPT to post answers, then assign it to a bot and strip the user of their access/authentication. It's not their answer anyways. Like you mentioned, chatGPT is available for anyone, so why not just go ask chatGPT instead posting on your account it's answers like a true imposter. | |
| Jan 17, 2023 at 4:33 | comment | added | Dawood ibn Kareem | This is the best answer. If someone wants an AI generated answer, they know where to get one. And it's not here. | |
| Jan 1, 2023 at 10:49 | comment | added | YungDeiza | @MaxHodges, that seems like a good idea. Maybe SO will eventually release a similar chat feature where you can get an AI answer but I still think it should be separate from the current Q&A system. | |
| Jan 1, 2023 at 2:15 | comment | added | maxhodges | SO is dead. Quora also stands to be disrupted by SO. Their response: Quora launched a platform called Poe that lets people ask questions, get instant answers and have a back-and-forth dialogue with AI chatbots. SO reaction to ban this marvelous technological breakthrough will only hasten SO's decline. | |
| Dec 31, 2022 at 3:43 | comment | added | YungDeiza | It's redundant, the OP could just directly ask their question using CGPT but they didn't so it shouldn't be given a CGPT response. | |
| Dec 31, 2022 at 3:22 | comment | added | maxhodges | This like like banning Grammarly. 1) GPT answers are not substantially worse than the avg SO user. It goes far better on many technical questions than engineers with years of experience. 2) SO already has a voting system so that incorrect or harmful answers can be downvoted. If you don't believe if your voting and reputation system, maybe you should redesign it. What's the difference between a "harmful" human answer an a harmful ChatGPT answer? who cares! | |
| Dec 9, 2022 at 10:35 | history | answered | YungDeiza | CC BY-SA 4.0 |