4 ms·

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 import

by 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.

by Me1000 3y ago

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.