3 ms·

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...."

>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...."