3 ms·

I think the ban on ChatGPT answers on Stack Overflow is a mistake. Sure, some of the answers might not be correct, but that's true for any tool. And the fact th

by lovecg 4y ago

I think the ban on ChatGPT answers on Stack Overflow is a mistake. Sure, some of the answers might not be correct, but that's true for any tool. And the fact that ChatGPT answers are easy to produce means that more people can contribute, which can only be a good thing for the community. Plus, it's not like the moderators have to accept every answer - they can still weed out the bad ones. Let's not punish everyone because of a few bad apples. — ChatGPT arguing its own case

NetOpWibby 4y ago
Compelling argument
ignoramous 4y ago
ChatGPT misses the point that it mostly trains and hallucinates on info exclusively produced by humans. When sites like SO, Reddit, HN, Wikipedia begin to be dominated by GPT-3, it is then the humanity commences its ill-advised journey into the Matrix. As long as Chicken tastes good, I guess there will be few complaints (worry about the futility of staunch vegans, though). — Human who watches SciFi movies
- hgomersall 4y ago
  It tastes quite like chicken initially, but lacks any sauce, or variability. You soon crave a piece that has some novel texture.
  - the_gipsy 4y ago
    Have you ever tasted a wild chicken?
    - hgomersall 4y ago
      It's not like that.
- joe_the_user 4y ago
  Given the faulty argument of GPT trained on human speech, I assume that GPT trained on GPT will be distinctly incoherent but somehow persuasive. But by that point, the GPT administering the sites won't be troubled by the situation.
joe_the_user 4y ago
I gotta admit, it puts forward it's fallacious points well: And the fact that ChatGPT answers are easy to produce means that more people can contribute. Actually, that means that fewer people and one robot will contribute. But as the SO administrators say, these answer are close enough to true to require a lot of effort on the part administrators - and this stuff may promise a rocky road for answer and discussion sites in the near future. And that would not mean that more people are "participating" either.
techdragon 4y ago
Going to be blunt... I'm kinda sick of this already This pattern... <1-3 paragraphs of ChatGPT generated text here> <Summary saying I used ChatGPT to write this> It was cute for like the first couple of times... Clever even... But now the novelty is wearing thin and all I see are the fallacies inherent in trying to put this forward as some sort of argument/comment in favour of a viewpoint... because I'm still giving the commenter the benefit of the doubt and assuming they are trying to make a substantive contribution to the discussion. - False Attribution (https://www.logicalfallacies.org/false-cause-and-false-attribution.html https://www.logicalfallacies.org/false-cause-and-false-attri...) almost universally at play since before the bait and switch they are attributing AI/ML blather for that of a genuine human's reasoning and opinion, revealing it was from the AI doesn't remove that. By virtue of posting it on your own account, there is the inherent presumption that its coming from the human who registered the account, and thus the false attribution.
- kleene_op 4y ago
  I now check the ending of every comment in ChatGPT related discussions before giving it a read.
- eliasdaler 4y ago
  At least people are giving a disclaimer. I'm afraid we'll soon waste a lot of time reading ChatGPT generated comments without even realizing it.
  - gremlinsinc 4y ago
    Why not just have it do all my commenting ? It's way more interesting than I'll ever be lol.
- jwozn 4y ago
  I think this is a good point, but misses the benefit of causing us to question everything posted and read all comments with a hint of skepticism about the motivations of the poster. Is what they posted correct? Are they shaping data to serve their own conclusions? Is it a robot who's purpose is to destroy humanity? The last one is obviously a joke and you shouldn't jump to a conclusion like that. - Written by a real human, I promise
deelly 4y ago
> Sure, some of the answers might not be correct, but that's true for any tool. Can't agree. When writing code I actually pretty sure that 1 + 1 = 2, and 100 + 100 = 200. Of course, of course it could be not true for all languages and all environments, but in one language and in one environment 1 + 1 = 2 is true is always, and not with 99.9999999% chance. Thats my issue with ChatGPT answers - I can't trust it. ChatGPT shifts complexity of reading, analyzing, verifying correctness of answer to human.
mdp2021 4y ago
Before the abuse: intelligent experts attempting provision of a good or perfected answer. After the abuse: intelligent experts using their time to check the vaticinations of a delirious toy.
gremlinsinc 4y ago
I think they should have a flag or something so you can self-identify the post as made by GPT so people can compare/contrast what it's capable of. Missed opportunity imho.

by lovecg 4y ago

NetOpWibby 4y ago

Compelling argument

ignoramous 4y ago

ChatGPT misses the point that it mostly trains and hallucinates on info exclusively produced by humans. When sites like SO, Reddit, HN, Wikipedia begin to be dominated by GPT-3, it is then the humanity commences its ill-advised journey into the Matrix. As long as Chicken tastes good, I guess there will be few complaints (worry about the futility of staunch vegans, though). — Human who watches SciFi movies

hgomersall 4y ago
It tastes quite like chicken initially, but lacks any sauce, or variability. You soon crave a piece that has some novel texture.
- the_gipsy 4y ago
  Have you ever tasted a wild chicken?
  - hgomersall 4y ago
    It's not like that.
joe_the_user 4y ago
Given the faulty argument of GPT trained on human speech, I assume that GPT trained on GPT will be distinctly incoherent but somehow persuasive. But by that point, the GPT administering the sites won't be troubled by the situation.

joe_the_user 4y ago

I gotta admit, it puts forward it's fallacious points well: And the fact that ChatGPT answers are easy to produce means that more people can contribute. Actually, that means that fewer people and one robot will contribute. But as the SO administrators say, these answer are close enough to true to require a lot of effort on the part administrators - and this stuff may promise a rocky road for answer and discussion sites in the near future. And that would not mean that more people are "participating" either.

techdragon 4y ago

Going to be blunt... I'm kinda sick of this already This pattern... <1-3 paragraphs of ChatGPT generated text here> <Summary saying I used ChatGPT to write this> It was cute for like the first couple of times... Clever even... But now the novelty is wearing thin and all I see are the fallacies inherent in trying to put this forward as some sort of argument/comment in favour of a viewpoint... because I'm still giving the commenter the benefit of the doubt and assuming they are trying to make a substantive contribution to the discussion. - False Attribution (https://www.logicalfallacies.org/false-cause-and-false-attribution.html https://www.logicalfallacies.org/false-cause-and-false-attri...) almost universally at play since before the bait and switch they are attributing AI/ML blather for that of a genuine human's reasoning and opinion, revealing it was from the AI doesn't remove that. By virtue of posting it on your own account, there is the inherent presumption that its coming from the human who registered the account, and thus the false attribution.

kleene_op 4y ago
I now check the ending of every comment in ChatGPT related discussions before giving it a read.
eliasdaler 4y ago
At least people are giving a disclaimer. I'm afraid we'll soon waste a lot of time reading ChatGPT generated comments without even realizing it.
- gremlinsinc 4y ago
  Why not just have it do all my commenting ? It's way more interesting than I'll ever be lol.
jwozn 4y ago
I think this is a good point, but misses the benefit of causing us to question everything posted and read all comments with a hint of skepticism about the motivations of the poster. Is what they posted correct? Are they shaping data to serve their own conclusions? Is it a robot who's purpose is to destroy humanity? The last one is obviously a joke and you shouldn't jump to a conclusion like that. - Written by a real human, I promise

deelly 4y ago

> Sure, some of the answers might not be correct, but that's true for any tool. Can't agree. When writing code I actually pretty sure that 1 + 1 = 2, and 100 + 100 = 200. Of course, of course it could be not true for all languages and all environments, but in one language and in one environment 1 + 1 = 2 is true is always, and not with 99.9999999% chance. Thats my issue with ChatGPT answers - I can't trust it. ChatGPT shifts complexity of reading, analyzing, verifying correctness of answer to human.

mdp2021 4y ago

Before the abuse: intelligent experts attempting provision of a good or perfected answer. After the abuse: intelligent experts using their time to check the vaticinations of a delirious toy.

gremlinsinc 4y ago

I think they should have a flag or something so you can self-identify the post as made by GPT so people can compare/contrast what it's capable of. Missed opportunity imho.