4 ms·

Taking aside the fact that the AI generated answers are awfully wrong most of the time, this line of thinking also leads to an absolutely dreadful state of inte

Taking aside the fact that the AI generated answers are awfully wrong most of the time, this line of thinking also leads to an absolutely dreadful state of internet where everything is AI generated crap. This is made worse by the fact that StackOverflow has points, badges and everything. People buy and sell stars on github to increase their chances of being hired somewhere. People absolutely will game the shit out of StackOverflow, not caring for a single second if it actually makes it a better place if it means they get shiny badges and get to put "top commenter on the C# subject on SO (588100 points)" on their resume.

janekm 3y ago
Giving moderators the power to arbitrarily ban users they deem to have produced content by AI is not likely to work for long though. Perhaps today it's still feasible to note the "vibe" for GPT, but that's not likely to be possible for long (it's probably an artefact of the RLHF process anyway). Then what? You'll end up with essentially arbitrary application of the ban hammer based on the moderators' "feelings". I certainly don't have the answers (and let's face it it's likely going to be a problem here too).
- ohgodplsno 3y ago
  >You'll end up with essentially arbitrary application of the ban hammer based on the moderators' "feelings". So, like the current organisation of things, that works quite well? You put entirely too much value on moderators being perfect. Moderators have been biased forever, have banned for no reason forever. It's a website, you can live with that (or without it). If they're unreasonable, move away, find another place or create another place. If you can't move away, deal with it, create an alt, don't get caught doing the same thing that got you banned, and that'll be it.
- alwaysbeconsing 3y ago
  > is not likely to work for long though. This is true, and it's why the policy promulgated by the moderators was explicitly temporary. It was a response to an acute problem to give everyone time to figure out how to handle it as a chronic condition: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/421831/temporary-policy-chatgpt-is-banned https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/421831/temporary-po...
cookie_monsta 3y ago
I am curious to hear from people here who read resumes and hire people. Is "top commenter on the C# subject on SO (588100 points)" on a resume something that would influence your hiring decision and if so would you be tempted to go check a few of those comments/answers out?
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  It doesn't ever have to ACTUALLY work for enough people to believe, or want it to work, and go through the effort of spamming a community to death to make a number go up.

janekm 3y ago

Giving moderators the power to arbitrarily ban users they deem to have produced content by AI is not likely to work for long though. Perhaps today it's still feasible to note the "vibe" for GPT, but that's not likely to be possible for long (it's probably an artefact of the RLHF process anyway). Then what? You'll end up with essentially arbitrary application of the ban hammer based on the moderators' "feelings". I certainly don't have the answers (and let's face it it's likely going to be a problem here too).

ohgodplsno 3y ago
>You'll end up with essentially arbitrary application of the ban hammer based on the moderators' "feelings". So, like the current organisation of things, that works quite well? You put entirely too much value on moderators being perfect. Moderators have been biased forever, have banned for no reason forever. It's a website, you can live with that (or without it). If they're unreasonable, move away, find another place or create another place. If you can't move away, deal with it, create an alt, don't get caught doing the same thing that got you banned, and that'll be it.
alwaysbeconsing 3y ago
> is not likely to work for long though. This is true, and it's why the policy promulgated by the moderators was explicitly temporary. It was a response to an acute problem to give everyone time to figure out how to handle it as a chronic condition: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/421831/temporary-policy-chatgpt-is-banned https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/421831/temporary-po...

cookie_monsta 3y ago

I am curious to hear from people here who read resumes and hire people. Is "top commenter on the C# subject on SO (588100 points)" on a resume something that would influence your hiring decision and if so would you be tempted to go check a few of those comments/answers out?

mrguyorama 3y ago
It doesn't ever have to ACTUALLY work for enough people to believe, or want it to work, and go through the effort of spamming a community to death to make a number go up.