> StackOverflow and Google are finished. This is expected and it may not look like it now, but banning an advancement in technology (even temporary) is usually

> StackOverflow and Google are finished. This is expected and it may not look like it now, but banning an advancement in technology (even temporary) is usually the first step to irrelevance of those pushing back. Depends on the reason for banning a technology. In this case it isn't because SO's business model is threatened, really; right now it's largely because the ChatGPT answers are usually wrong, and getting spammed to high hell by people who think they're clever by using ChatGPT to answer questions. It's similar to image boards banning or requiring labels for AI-generated art. It's not that artists feel threatened... it's that the people looking at art don't want to have to wade through a ton of similar-looking, mediocre AI-generated crap. Or to put it another way; if I set up some bots to start spamming every HN post with dozens of ChatGPT generated comments based on the submission title[0], and I (rightfully) got banned for such, is that because HN feels threatened by ChatGPT? [0] not using text from the article as a prompt to more accurately simulate the average HN comment