4 ms·

Why? If the answers are good, leave them.

isoprophlex 3y ago
That's the thing, A) they might not be, B) once we start mixing human answers with AI on SO, it's value as a data source for future LLM train runs will decrease. The tech is moving at breakneck pace, and in general I'm loving it. But let's not hurry the adoption of AI too much
- 8note 3y ago
  For B, SO still has voting on answers as well as acceptance of answers It's not as valuable as raw text input, but it's still marked up and classified
  - jatins 3y ago
    > SO still has voting on answers We call it RLHF these days
  - shagie 3y ago
    Consider the answer to the question "how often do people down vote incorrect information?" While SO still has voting, the value of a vote in terms of identifying correct information has fallen off substantially in the past several years. Poorly written questions and incorrect answers are more likely to get an upvote for trying than a down vote for what's actually written.
kristopolous 3y ago
Because the system isn't confirming the answers. Let's assume we have the final form AGI. If it doesn't confirm the claims are accurate then it falls under the same flaw as humans who don't confirm. If it's a bunch of untested, unconfirmed results that are statistically pretty decent, this doesn't really reduce the amount of work. That is the same misplaced enthusiasm that developers tend to do when they fetishize new tools or languages which actually make their job more complicated and time consuming but occupy the time in a way that gives illusory optics to the contrary. The fact that most devs get fooled by such productivity illusions are why 10x engineer are a real thing.
- pixl97 3y ago
  >Because the system isn't confirming the answers. Do we have any evidence that users confirm the answers? In general the conformation is in the end users following up and saying this works/doesn't work. Now, this gets more problematic when 'bots' follow up and says it works, but that is going to be a massive problem in detecting that's the case unless they are doing it far more than a human could.
  - kristopolous 3y ago
    > Do we have any evidence that users confirm the answers? No. > In general the conformation is in the end users following up and saying this works/doesn't work. I guess. The point is there's a limit to the trustworthiness of the results and if I'm going there to fix a problem, the success rate I'm looking for is 100%, especially if it's said as confidently and verbosely as these AIs seem to be

That's the thing, A) they might not be, B) once we start mixing human answers with AI on SO, it's value as a data source for future LLM train runs will decrease. The tech is moving at breakneck pace, and in general I'm loving it. But let's not hurry the adoption of AI too much

8note 3y ago
For B, SO still has voting on answers as well as acceptance of answers It's not as valuable as raw text input, but it's still marked up and classified
- jatins 3y ago
  > SO still has voting on answers We call it RLHF these days
- shagie 3y ago
  Consider the answer to the question "how often do people down vote incorrect information?" While SO still has voting, the value of a vote in terms of identifying correct information has fallen off substantially in the past several years. Poorly written questions and incorrect answers are more likely to get an upvote for trying than a down vote for what's actually written.

kristopolous 3y ago

Because the system isn't confirming the answers. Let's assume we have the final form AGI. If it doesn't confirm the claims are accurate then it falls under the same flaw as humans who don't confirm. If it's a bunch of untested, unconfirmed results that are statistically pretty decent, this doesn't really reduce the amount of work. That is the same misplaced enthusiasm that developers tend to do when they fetishize new tools or languages which actually make their job more complicated and time consuming but occupy the time in a way that gives illusory optics to the contrary. The fact that most devs get fooled by such productivity illusions are why 10x engineer are a real thing.

pixl97 3y ago
>Because the system isn't confirming the answers. Do we have any evidence that users confirm the answers? In general the conformation is in the end users following up and saying this works/doesn't work. Now, this gets more problematic when 'bots' follow up and says it works, but that is going to be a massive problem in detecting that's the case unless they are doing it far more than a human could.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  > Do we have any evidence that users confirm the answers? No. > In general the conformation is in the end users following up and saying this works/doesn't work. I guess. The point is there's a limit to the trustworthiness of the results and if I'm going there to fix a problem, the success rate I'm looking for is 100%, especially if it's said as confidently and verbosely as these AIs seem to be