4 ms·

I was once a top 1% stack overflow user. I didn't start contributing to make money, just to share information and learn from each other. that can and should al

I was once a top 1% stack overflow user. I didn't start contributing to make money, just to share information and learn from each other. that can and should also be good enough for the AI era.

o11c 2y ago
There's a difference between "I'm willing to exert myself to help people" and "I'm willing to exert myself so that somebody else can slap their name on my effort and make money, then deny me the right to do the same to them". Also, at a social level - the worst kind of user has always been a help vampire, and LLMs are really good at increasing the number of help vampires.
- lmz 2y ago
  > Also, at a social level - the worst kind of user has always been a help vampire, and LLMs are really good at increasing the number of help vampires. Maybe we should hype up LLMs more so the help vampires and LLMs can keep each other busy?
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  An ungodly amount of paid software is built on the back free stack exchange answers. Complaining about lack of compensation for answers that ultimately lead to revenue was just as valid 20 years ago as today.
fennecs 2y ago
Not sure that’s quite equivalent; Megacorp scraping the entire internet vs individuals sharing knowledge on a platform are a completely different scale.
sdesol 2y ago
> I didn't start contributing to make money Your intentions might not have been to make money, but you were creating social credit that could be redeemed for a higher and better paying job. With GitHub, Stack Overflow, etc., you are adding to your resume, but with AI, you literally get nothing in return for contributing.
- 8note 2y ago
  that social credit remains though? you can still point at your history of answers for how well you understand the thing, and how well you can communicate that knowledge. a portfolio is still a portfolio
  - sdesol 2y ago
    With StackOverflow, GitHub, etc. you would likely have people reach out to you for opportunities. With AI, if you contribute to StackOverflow and if it gets picked up by AI, people may or may not know.
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      That's a very small price to pay for what we all stand to gain. I pay for o1-pro cheerfully, but I wouldn't pay anything at all for Stack Overflow. ChatGPT certainly generates its share of BS, but I have yet to have a question rejected because somebody who was using a different language or OS asked about something vaguely similar 8 years ago.
      - sdesol 2y ago
        > That's a very small price to pay for what we all stand to gain. Sure, if AI was made free for everybody (or only be charged for cost to run). With Stack Overflow, GitHub and others, there is a mutual understanding that contributing can benefit the contributor. What is the incentive to continue contributing if the social agreement is, you get to help define a statistical weight for the next token and nobody will know? I think the future business model may require AI companies to pay people to contribute, or it might not be a technology roadblock, but rather a data roadblock that prevents further advancement.
        bruce511 2y ago
        >> With Stack Overflow, GitHub and others, there is a mutual understanding that contributing can benefit the contributor. I think lots of people contribute everywhere without getting any benefit at all. I don't doubt that some who do contribute hoping for, or expecting, some ancillary benefit. I'd suggest that pretty much the only tangible benefit I can see is those searching for a job. Contributing in public spaces is a good technique for self-promotion as being skilled in an area. Then again I'd suggest that the majority of people participating on those sites are already employed, so they're not doing it for that benefit. I'd even argue that their day job accomplishments are likely to be more impressive than their github account when it comes to their next interview. So perhaps I can reassure you. I'm pretty sure people will continue to absorb information, and skills, and will continue to share that with others. This has been the way for thousands of years. It has survived the inventions of writing, printing, radio, television and the internet. It will survive LLMs.
deathanatos 2y ago
> I was once a top 1% stack overflow user. So am I. > I didn't start contributing to make money, just to share information and learn from each other. that can and should also be good enough for the AI era. Sure; my content was contributed under CC-BY-SA, and if AI honors the rather simple terms of that license, then it's also good enough for the AI era, just as I had the same expectations of human consumers.
formerlurker 2y ago
I wonder what would happen if we purposely start polluting the training data? It may be too late for older technology but technology is always changing. If this is a way for me to protect my job and increase my value I actually consider doing this.
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
The billionaires thank you for your generosity

I was once a top 1% stack overflow user. I didn't start contributing to make money, just to share information and learn from each other. that can and should also be good enough for the AI era.

o11c 2y ago

There's a difference between "I'm willing to exert myself to help people" and "I'm willing to exert myself so that somebody else can slap their name on my effort and make money, then deny me the right to do the same to them". Also, at a social level - the worst kind of user has always been a help vampire, and LLMs are really good at increasing the number of help vampires.

lmz 2y ago
> Also, at a social level - the worst kind of user has always been a help vampire, and LLMs are really good at increasing the number of help vampires. Maybe we should hype up LLMs more so the help vampires and LLMs can keep each other busy?
Workaccount2 2y ago
An ungodly amount of paid software is built on the back free stack exchange answers. Complaining about lack of compensation for answers that ultimately lead to revenue was just as valid 20 years ago as today.

fennecs 2y ago

Not sure that’s quite equivalent; Megacorp scraping the entire internet vs individuals sharing knowledge on a platform are a completely different scale.

sdesol 2y ago

> I didn't start contributing to make money Your intentions might not have been to make money, but you were creating social credit that could be redeemed for a higher and better paying job. With GitHub, Stack Overflow, etc., you are adding to your resume, but with AI, you literally get nothing in return for contributing.

8note 2y ago
that social credit remains though? you can still point at your history of answers for how well you understand the thing, and how well you can communicate that knowledge. a portfolio is still a portfolio
- sdesol 2y ago
  With StackOverflow, GitHub, etc. you would likely have people reach out to you for opportunities. With AI, if you contribute to StackOverflow and if it gets picked up by AI, people may or may not know.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    That's a very small price to pay for what we all stand to gain. I pay for o1-pro cheerfully, but I wouldn't pay anything at all for Stack Overflow. ChatGPT certainly generates its share of BS, but I have yet to have a question rejected because somebody who was using a different language or OS asked about something vaguely similar 8 years ago.
    - sdesol 2y ago
      > That's a very small price to pay for what we all stand to gain. Sure, if AI was made free for everybody (or only be charged for cost to run). With Stack Overflow, GitHub and others, there is a mutual understanding that contributing can benefit the contributor. What is the incentive to continue contributing if the social agreement is, you get to help define a statistical weight for the next token and nobody will know? I think the future business model may require AI companies to pay people to contribute, or it might not be a technology roadblock, but rather a data roadblock that prevents further advancement.
      - bruce511 2y ago
        >> With Stack Overflow, GitHub and others, there is a mutual understanding that contributing can benefit the contributor. I think lots of people contribute everywhere without getting any benefit at all. I don't doubt that some who do contribute hoping for, or expecting, some ancillary benefit. I'd suggest that pretty much the only tangible benefit I can see is those searching for a job. Contributing in public spaces is a good technique for self-promotion as being skilled in an area. Then again I'd suggest that the majority of people participating on those sites are already employed, so they're not doing it for that benefit. I'd even argue that their day job accomplishments are likely to be more impressive than their github account when it comes to their next interview. So perhaps I can reassure you. I'm pretty sure people will continue to absorb information, and skills, and will continue to share that with others. This has been the way for thousands of years. It has survived the inventions of writing, printing, radio, television and the internet. It will survive LLMs.

deathanatos 2y ago

> I was once a top 1% stack overflow user. So am I. > I didn't start contributing to make money, just to share information and learn from each other. that can and should also be good enough for the AI era. Sure; my content was contributed under CC-BY-SA, and if AI honors the rather simple terms of that license, then it's also good enough for the AI era, just as I had the same expectations of human consumers.

formerlurker 2y ago

I wonder what would happen if we purposely start polluting the training data? It may be too late for older technology but technology is always changing. If this is a way for me to protect my job and increase my value I actually consider doing this.

AtlasBarfed 2y ago

The billionaires thank you for your generosity