6 ms·

> If answers are good, keep them. If they're bad, downvote them. If they're redundant or off-topic or gibberish, delete them. Yeah, lets us keep providing free

> If answers are good, keep them. If they're bad, downvote them. If they're redundant or off-topic or gibberish, delete them. Yeah, lets us keep providing free labor to help train somebody else's models, improve somebody else's infrastructure so that they can even more effectively dominate.

LelouBil 3y ago
I think you missed the fact that you are mainly doing this to make other users find relevant answers, on a free website. Or maybe you would want to pay for a version of stack overflow that is only curated by employed people ? But I guess you would lose much content.
- rich_sasha 3y ago
  As you say, Stack overflow is free to use. ChatGPT isn't and its scraped web training corpus is not available. So it's not symmetric
Me1000 3y ago
How is that any different than providing free labor to help someone learn how to build the next [X] so that they can more effectively dominate? But more importantly banning AI generated content from Stack Overflow doesn’t solve the “problem” you’re describing.
- nologic01 3y ago
  > How is that any different than providing free labor to help someone learn how to build the next [X] so that they can more effectively dominate? Its an absurd equivalence. A human can never "dominate" no matter how much they learn. Training for free a closed, for-profit private enterprize infrastructure that will eventually make your preferred free collaboration platform obsolete is like the ultimate of naivete (or vested interest).
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >A human can never "dominate" no matter how much they learn. Somewhere an autocratic leader is laughing at you.
  - Flimm 3y ago
    All content on Stack Overflow is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-SA. So, in theory, the community could create a new Q&A website and import all the questions and answers from Stack Overflow. But that doesn't overcome the network effect, I admit.
  - Me1000 3y ago
    It's not really an equivalence, if you remove the sensationalism, it's just a point that the free work is already being provided. Put more succinctly I'm making two points: 1) The free work is already being done. 2) StackOverflow has been crawl-able since forever. You'd have to address both of those problems before the concern that you're raising becomes relevant. Banning the posting of new generated content doesn't address either of those things.
    - nologic01 3y ago
      Ok, it makes more sense now. But you need to consider the significant incremental benefit to the model training process when creating labels exactly where the model underperforms. The baseline you mention is already an issue that is being debated hotly. My comment was that humans reviewing and fixing new AI content is exactly not what should be done in the current circumstances.

LelouBil 3y ago

I think you missed the fact that you are mainly doing this to make other users find relevant answers, on a free website. Or maybe you would want to pay for a version of stack overflow that is only curated by employed people ? But I guess you would lose much content.

rich_sasha 3y ago
As you say, Stack overflow is free to use. ChatGPT isn't and its scraped web training corpus is not available. So it's not symmetric

Me1000 3y ago

How is that any different than providing free labor to help someone learn how to build the next [X] so that they can more effectively dominate? But more importantly banning AI generated content from Stack Overflow doesn’t solve the “problem” you’re describing.

nologic01 3y ago
> How is that any different than providing free labor to help someone learn how to build the next [X] so that they can more effectively dominate? Its an absurd equivalence. A human can never "dominate" no matter how much they learn. Training for free a closed, for-profit private enterprize infrastructure that will eventually make your preferred free collaboration platform obsolete is like the ultimate of naivete (or vested interest).
- pixl97 3y ago
  >A human can never "dominate" no matter how much they learn. Somewhere an autocratic leader is laughing at you.
- Flimm 3y ago
  All content on Stack Overflow is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-SA. So, in theory, the community could create a new Q&A website and import all the questions and answers from Stack Overflow. But that doesn't overcome the network effect, I admit.
- Me1000 3y ago
  It's not really an equivalence, if you remove the sensationalism, it's just a point that the free work is already being provided. Put more succinctly I'm making two points: 1) The free work is already being done. 2) StackOverflow has been crawl-able since forever. You'd have to address both of those problems before the concern that you're raising becomes relevant. Banning the posting of new generated content doesn't address either of those things.
  - nologic01 3y ago
    Ok, it makes more sense now. But you need to consider the significant incremental benefit to the model training process when creating labels exactly where the model underperforms. The baseline you mention is already an issue that is being debated hotly. My comment was that humans reviewing and fixing new AI content is exactly not what should be done in the current circumstances.