4 ms·

As much as I'm also annoyed by that phrase, is it really any different from: - I had to Google it... - According to a StackOverflow answer... - Person X told

As much as I'm also annoyed by that phrase, is it really any different from: - I had to Google it... - According to a StackOverflow answer... - Person X told me about this nice trick... - etc. Stating your sources should surely not be a bad thing, no?

nraynaud 1y ago
the first 2 bullet points give you an array of answers/comments helping you cross check (also I'm a freak, and even on SO, I generally click on the posted documentation links).
spiffyk 1y ago
Well, it is not, but the three "sources" you mention are not worth much either, much like ChatGPT.
- gruez 1y ago
  >but the three "sources" you mention are not worth much either, much like ChatGPT. I don't think I've ever seen anyone lambasted for citing stackoverflow as a source. At best, they chastised for not reading the comments, but nowhere as much pushback as for LLMs.
  - comex 1y ago
    From what I’ve seen, Stack Overflow answers are much more reliable than LLMs. Also, using Stack Overflow correctly requires more critical thinking. You have to determine whether any given question-and-answer is actually relevant to your problem, rather than just pasting in your code and seeing what the LLM says. Requiring more work is not inherently a good thing, but it does mean that if you’re citing Stack Overflow, you probably have a somewhat better understanding of whatever you’re citing it for than if you cited an LLM.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - spiffyk 1y ago
    I have personally always been kind of against using StackOverflow as a sole source for things. It is very often a good pointer, but it's always a good idea to cross-check with primary sources. Otherwise you get all sorts of interesting surprises, like that Razer Synapse + Docker for Windows debacle. Not to mention that you are technically not allowed to just copy-paste stuff from SO.
    - throwaway2037 1y ago
      > Not to mention that you are technically not allowed to just copy-paste stuff from SO. Sure you can. Over the last ten years, I have probably copied at least 100 snippets of code from StackOverflow in my corporate code base (and included a link to the original code). The stuff that was published before Generation AI Slop started is unbeatable as a source of code snippets. I am a developer for internal CRUD apps, so we don't care about licenses (except AGPL due to FUD by legal & compliance teams). Anything goes because we do not distribute our software externally.
  - mynameisvlad 1y ago
    I mean, if all they did is regurgitate a SO post wholesale without checking the correctness or applicability, and the answer was in fact not correct or applicable, they would probably get equally lambasted. If anything, SO having verified answers helps its credibility slightly compared to a LLM which are all known to regularly hallucinate (see: literally this post).
- bloppe 1y ago
  SO at least has reputation scores and people vote on answers. An answer with 5000 upvotes, written by someone with high karma, is probably legit.
- dpoloncsak 1y ago
  ...isn't that exactly why someone states that? "Hey, I didn't study this, I found it on Google. Take it with a grain of caution, as it came from the internet" has been shortened to "I googled it and...", which is now evolving to "Hey, I asked chatGPT, and...."
hx8 1y ago
It depends on if they are just repeating things without understanding, or if they have understanding. My issue is that people that say "I asked gpt" is that they often do not have any understanding themselves. Copy and pasting from ChatGPT has the same consequences as copying and pasting from StackOverflow, which is to say you're now on the hook supporting code in production that you don't understand.
- tough 1y ago
  We cannot blame the tools for how they are used by those yielding them. I can use ChatGPT to teach me and understand a topic or i can use it to give me an answer and not double check and just copy paste. Just shows off how much you care about the topic at hand, no?
  - multjoy 1y ago
    How do you know that ChatGPT is teaching you about the topic? It doesn't know what is right or what is wrong.
    - tough 1y ago
      It can consult any sources about any topic, ChatGPT is as good at teaching as the pupil's capabilities to ask the right questions, if you ask me
      - multjoy 1y ago
        It may well consult any source about the topic, or it may simply make something up. If you don't know anything about the subject area, how do you know if you are asking the right questions?
        ryandrake 1y ago
        LLM fans never seem very comfortable answering the question "How do you know it's correct?"
stonemetal12 1y ago
In general those point to the person's understanding being shallow. So far when someone says "GPT said..." it is a new low in understanding, and there is no more to the article they googled or second stackOverflow answer with a different take on it, it is the end of the conversation.
mentalpiracy 1y ago
It is not about stating a source, the bad thing is treating chatGPT as an authoritative source like it is a subject matter expert.
- silversmith 1y ago
  But is "I asked chatgpt" assigning any authority to it? I use precisely that sentence as a shorthand for "I didn't know, looked it up in the most convenient way, and it sounded plausible enough to pass on".
  - jacksnipe 1y ago
    In my own experience, the vast majority of people using this phrase ARE using it as a source of authority. People will ask me about things I am an actual expert in, and then when they don’t like my response, hit me with the ol’ “well, I asked chatGPT and it said…”
    - jstanley 1y ago
      I think you are misunderstanding them. I also frequently cite ChatGPT, as a way to accurately convey my source, not as a way to claim it as authoritative.
      - billyoneal 1y ago
        I think you are in the minority of people who use that phrase.
      - jacksnipe 1y ago
        I have interrogated it in those cases. I was not misunderstanding.
  - mirrorlake 1y ago
    It's a social-media-level of fact checking, that is to say, you feel something is right but have no clue if it actually is. If you had a better source for a fact, you'd quote that source rather than the LLM. Just do the research, and you don't have to qualify it. "GPT said that Don Knuth said..." Just verify that Don said it, and report the real fact! And if something turns out to be too difficult to fact check, that's still valuable information.
rhizome 1y ago
All three of those should be followed by "...and I checked it to see if it was a sufficient solution to X..." or words to that effect.
billyoneal 1y ago
The complaint isn't about stating the source. The complaint is about asking for advice, then ignoring that advice. If one asks how to do something, get a reply, then reply to that reply 'but Google says', that's just as rude.
kimixa 1y ago
It's a "source" that cannot be reproduced or actually referenced in any way. And all the other examples will have a chain of "upstream" references, data and discussion. I suppose you can use those same phrases to reference things without that, random "summaries" without references or research, "expert opinion" from someone without any experience in that sector, opinion pieces from similarly reputation-less people etc. but I'd say they're equally worthless as references as "According to GPT...", and should be treated similarly.

nraynaud 1y ago

the first 2 bullet points give you an array of answers/comments helping you cross check (also I'm a freak, and even on SO, I generally click on the posted documentation links).

spiffyk 1y ago

Well, it is not, but the three "sources" you mention are not worth much either, much like ChatGPT.

gruez 1y ago
>but the three "sources" you mention are not worth much either, much like ChatGPT. I don't think I've ever seen anyone lambasted for citing stackoverflow as a source. At best, they chastised for not reading the comments, but nowhere as much pushback as for LLMs.
- comex 1y ago
  From what I’ve seen, Stack Overflow answers are much more reliable than LLMs. Also, using Stack Overflow correctly requires more critical thinking. You have to determine whether any given question-and-answer is actually relevant to your problem, rather than just pasting in your code and seeing what the LLM says. Requiring more work is not inherently a good thing, but it does mean that if you’re citing Stack Overflow, you probably have a somewhat better understanding of whatever you’re citing it for than if you cited an LLM.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- spiffyk 1y ago
  I have personally always been kind of against using StackOverflow as a sole source for things. It is very often a good pointer, but it's always a good idea to cross-check with primary sources. Otherwise you get all sorts of interesting surprises, like that Razer Synapse + Docker for Windows debacle. Not to mention that you are technically not allowed to just copy-paste stuff from SO.
  - throwaway2037 1y ago
    > Not to mention that you are technically not allowed to just copy-paste stuff from SO. Sure you can. Over the last ten years, I have probably copied at least 100 snippets of code from StackOverflow in my corporate code base (and included a link to the original code). The stuff that was published before Generation AI Slop started is unbeatable as a source of code snippets. I am a developer for internal CRUD apps, so we don't care about licenses (except AGPL due to FUD by legal & compliance teams). Anything goes because we do not distribute our software externally.
- mynameisvlad 1y ago
  I mean, if all they did is regurgitate a SO post wholesale without checking the correctness or applicability, and the answer was in fact not correct or applicable, they would probably get equally lambasted. If anything, SO having verified answers helps its credibility slightly compared to a LLM which are all known to regularly hallucinate (see: literally this post).
bloppe 1y ago
SO at least has reputation scores and people vote on answers. An answer with 5000 upvotes, written by someone with high karma, is probably legit.
dpoloncsak 1y ago
...isn't that exactly why someone states that? "Hey, I didn't study this, I found it on Google. Take it with a grain of caution, as it came from the internet" has been shortened to "I googled it and...", which is now evolving to "Hey, I asked chatGPT, and...."

hx8 1y ago

It depends on if they are just repeating things without understanding, or if they have understanding. My issue is that people that say "I asked gpt" is that they often do not have any understanding themselves. Copy and pasting from ChatGPT has the same consequences as copying and pasting from StackOverflow, which is to say you're now on the hook supporting code in production that you don't understand.

tough 1y ago
We cannot blame the tools for how they are used by those yielding them. I can use ChatGPT to teach me and understand a topic or i can use it to give me an answer and not double check and just copy paste. Just shows off how much you care about the topic at hand, no?
- multjoy 1y ago
  How do you know that ChatGPT is teaching you about the topic? It doesn't know what is right or what is wrong.
  - tough 1y ago
    It can consult any sources about any topic, ChatGPT is as good at teaching as the pupil's capabilities to ask the right questions, if you ask me
    - multjoy 1y ago
      It may well consult any source about the topic, or it may simply make something up. If you don't know anything about the subject area, how do you know if you are asking the right questions?
      - ryandrake 1y ago
        LLM fans never seem very comfortable answering the question "How do you know it's correct?"

stonemetal12 1y ago

In general those point to the person's understanding being shallow. So far when someone says "GPT said..." it is a new low in understanding, and there is no more to the article they googled or second stackOverflow answer with a different take on it, it is the end of the conversation.

mentalpiracy 1y ago

It is not about stating a source, the bad thing is treating chatGPT as an authoritative source like it is a subject matter expert.

silversmith 1y ago
But is "I asked chatgpt" assigning any authority to it? I use precisely that sentence as a shorthand for "I didn't know, looked it up in the most convenient way, and it sounded plausible enough to pass on".
- jacksnipe 1y ago
  In my own experience, the vast majority of people using this phrase ARE using it as a source of authority. People will ask me about things I am an actual expert in, and then when they don’t like my response, hit me with the ol’ “well, I asked chatGPT and it said…”
  - jstanley 1y ago
    I think you are misunderstanding them. I also frequently cite ChatGPT, as a way to accurately convey my source, not as a way to claim it as authoritative.
    - billyoneal 1y ago
      I think you are in the minority of people who use that phrase.
    - jacksnipe 1y ago
      I have interrogated it in those cases. I was not misunderstanding.
- mirrorlake 1y ago
  It's a social-media-level of fact checking, that is to say, you feel something is right but have no clue if it actually is. If you had a better source for a fact, you'd quote that source rather than the LLM. Just do the research, and you don't have to qualify it. "GPT said that Don Knuth said..." Just verify that Don said it, and report the real fact! And if something turns out to be too difficult to fact check, that's still valuable information.

rhizome 1y ago

All three of those should be followed by "...and I checked it to see if it was a sufficient solution to X..." or words to that effect.

billyoneal 1y ago

The complaint isn't about stating the source. The complaint is about asking for advice, then ignoring that advice. If one asks how to do something, get a reply, then reply to that reply 'but Google says', that's just as rude.

kimixa 1y ago

It's a "source" that cannot be reproduced or actually referenced in any way. And all the other examples will have a chain of "upstream" references, data and discussion. I suppose you can use those same phrases to reference things without that, random "summaries" without references or research, "expert opinion" from someone without any experience in that sector, opinion pieces from similarly reputation-less people etc. but I'd say they're equally worthless as references as "According to GPT...", and should be treated similarly.