Timeline for Ban ChatGPT network-wide
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
72 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 31, 2023 at 13:23 | comment | added | Volker Siegel | @Trilarion That makes the impression that you are talking about answers without much prompting to steer the answer in the direction you want? It should be easy to make it specific, like by literally including "Be specific" in the prompt or the system prompt. Do you have an example query, so I can try to prompt it for very specific and very unspecific answers? (Try to include "Be terse." in the prompt for illustration) | |
| May 31, 2023 at 11:12 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | @VolkerSiegel "You can expect better than human answers in many cases." Not sure if better than human in many cases. I would rather say surprisingly good almost as good as human in many cases. But what is mostly evident is a lack of specificity. The general problem area is well explained, but when it comes down to grasping the core of the problem there is often still a lack. It can be helpful, but you always have to take it with a grain of salt. | |
| May 31, 2023 at 8:42 | answer | added | Shadow Wizard | timeline score: 13 | |
| Mar 30, 2023 at 17:35 | comment | added | starball | @BelowtheRadar The ban is of an account- not an IP address. If they want to circumvent the ban, they would create a new account (which they shouldn't, but they won't care if they want to), and there's not much we can do about that unless they do anything to trigger certain detectors like voting-ring detection. | |
| Mar 30, 2023 at 14:54 | comment | added | Below the Radar | @starball off course, users that will continue to post GPT answer after it was banned will try to hide behind a VPN. It is in the nature of some humans to do things like that. | |
| Mar 29, 2023 at 20:51 | comment | added | starball | @BelowtheRadar I was going to, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Did you post that comment because you have reason to believe there is a connection between users using VPNs and users using ChatGPT to post answers? | |
| Mar 29, 2023 at 20:32 | comment | added | Below the Radar | @starball you should just flag my comment if you think it's inapropriate, not replying to it. Thank you | |
| Mar 29, 2023 at 19:23 | comment | added | starball | @BelowtheRadar unless you have a reason why that's related to this question, post that as a separate question. Tag it either with support or feature-request. | |
| Mar 29, 2023 at 17:06 | comment | added | Below the Radar | I read here a suggestion to ban the users that post GPT answer. Is there a way to ban people using a VPN? | |
| Mar 19, 2023 at 21:35 | comment | added | Volker Siegel | With GPT-4, the situation changed. You can expect better than human answers in many cases. The improvement from ChatGPT is impressive. The difference from ChatGPT to GPT-4 is much larger than the difference from GPT-3 to ChatGPT. | |
| S Feb 8, 2023 at 19:27 | history | edited | Spevacus | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Honestly, I don't think this is central at all to the proposal and seems almost like an argument for a non-ban, which is counterproductive to the proposal
|
| Feb 8, 2023 at 18:09 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 8, 2023 at 19:27 | |||||
| Jan 31, 2023 at 21:57 | comment | added | Adám | @WalterMitty DetectGPT | |
| Jan 31, 2023 at 21:28 | comment | added | Walter Mitty | Maybe we need a bot that can detect vacuous answers! | |
| Jan 24, 2023 at 13:39 | history | protected | CommunityBot | ||
| Jan 21, 2023 at 15:58 | comment | added | GoGame RJ | Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists: nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00056-7 | |
| Dec 20, 2022 at 14:22 | vote | accept | Adám | ||
| S Dec 20, 2022 at 8:22 | history | suggested | starball | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
add chatgpt tag
|
| Dec 20, 2022 at 8:02 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 20, 2022 at 8:22 | |||||
| Dec 20, 2022 at 3:16 | answer | added | WHO'sNoToOldRx4Covid-CENSORED | timeline score: 13 | |
| Dec 19, 2022 at 21:18 | answer | added | SlateStaffMod | timeline score: 25 | |
| Dec 19, 2022 at 21:18 | history | edited | SlateStaffMod |
edited tags
|
|
| S Dec 18, 2022 at 18:53 | history | bounty ended | Resistance Is Futile | ||
| S Dec 18, 2022 at 18:53 | history | notice removed | Resistance Is Futile | ||
| Dec 16, 2022 at 16:25 | answer | added | CDJB | timeline score: 14 | |
| Dec 16, 2022 at 12:08 | comment | added | Ooker | I think sooner or later someone will make a browser plugin to select questions from the web and show its answers. People can easily select the questions on SE and see the AI-generated answers. And we can't affect this. Anyway, this will reduce the need to copy paste. So for people who want to read its answers (and thus opposing the ban), this plugin will reduce the need to oppose the ban. | |
| Dec 15, 2022 at 1:21 | answer | added | NotTheDr01ds | timeline score: 3 | |
| Dec 13, 2022 at 15:30 | answer | added | Ed Ames | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 13, 2022 at 13:02 | answer | added | SectorCorruptor | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 13, 2022 at 8:34 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | @ChrisRogers Please see How can we identify ChatGPT-generated posts? But as Makyen says there: "We (mods and some users working specifically on handling these posts) have not been publicly sharing information as to how we detect such posts, because doing so would give people using ChatGPT information that would be directly helpful to avoid detection". | |
| Dec 13, 2022 at 8:30 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | @tuskiomi True, there's a lot of plagiarism on the network, some due to ignorance, some wilful. If I suspect that the author is simply ignorant, I try to educate them in a brief, polite comment. Sometimes, (eg, when I recognise material from Wikipedia) I edit in an attribution myself. If it looks like wilful plagiarism, I flag it. Obviously, these processes don't scale well if a site gets inundated with ChatGPT content. | |
| Dec 13, 2022 at 4:50 | comment | added | Chris Rogers | While I agree that ChatGPT generated content does not belong in any StackExchange site, surely, to effectively ban this content we need to determine its existence. Apart from lack of citations, what definitive clues are there to determine that an answer was generated with ChatGPT compared to a basic uncited answer? | |
| Dec 12, 2022 at 20:41 | comment | added | tuskiomi | This whole ordeal is a tragic comedy, wherein humans are trying desperately to define themselves separately from AI, and the only thing they can muster is that the AI makes the same mistakes humans do to a somewhat greater extent. The only difference is in this case the AI is Odysseus and Stack Exchange is Charybdis. One day the arrow will perfectly pierce the axe handles, and we are not prepared. | |
| Dec 12, 2022 at 17:13 | answer | added | Makoto | timeline score: 14 | |
| Dec 12, 2022 at 10:01 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | @tuskiomi As I mentioned here some ChatGPT output is synthesised from numerous sources, but some of it directly quotes long passages from a single source. That kind of plagiarism is actually quite common with the computer code that it produces. | |
| S Dec 12, 2022 at 9:45 | history | bounty started | Resistance Is Futile | ||
| S Dec 12, 2022 at 9:45 | history | notice added | Resistance Is Futile | Draw attention | |
| Dec 11, 2022 at 8:48 | comment | added | tuskiomi | @starball it's also important to note that AI's cannot produce copyrighted works. This holds no water in a criminal context. It may have some recourse in a civil context, but the claim would be limited in damages, extremely so. That's not to say you should break any ToS, but the recourse is limited, the ethics of the demands are dubious, and what you're really asking for is for stack exchange to enforce a contract between two third parties... It is a liability at best. | |
| Dec 11, 2022 at 8:22 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @starball if only people would follow policy, lol. They don't. They want easy rep, and they'll do anything for that. So this crappy ChatGPT thing is the jackpot for them: way to write answers that look smart, get upvotes, and hard to detect it's not legit. | |
| Dec 11, 2022 at 6:21 | comment | added | starball | @tuskiomi ok thanks. Important note: ChatGPT's sharing and publication policy requires that "The role of AI in formulating the content is clearly disclosed in a way that no reader could possibly miss, and that a typical reader would find sufficiently easy to understand." | |
| Dec 8, 2022 at 10:55 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | @Slate At some point (probably sooner, rather than later) it may be necessary to clearly state on answering page that posting AI generated answers (on sites that don't allow them) is not acceptable and can result with account suspension. There are many policies that are not clearly stated and people post garbage because of that, but AI answers are way worse for detecting. There needs to be clear signal, and then there will be no surprises if someone gets a suspension. Also this could significantly reduce the influx of AI generated answers. | |
| Dec 6, 2022 at 18:32 | answer | added | Xirema | timeline score: 45 | |
| Dec 6, 2022 at 12:48 | answer | added | Resistance Is Futile | timeline score: 31 | |
| Dec 6, 2022 at 11:45 | answer | added | Robert Columbia | timeline score: 24 | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 22:36 | comment | added | Chindraba | IANAL: Plagiarism, as used on our sites, is simply presenting a work as your own. If you didn't create it, it's not your work. As a non-existent thing ChatGPT doesn't own the copyright, and it seems that the user receiving the response is given what amounts to the Unlicense, or perhaps becomes the owner, even as far as copyrights are concerned. But, it's not a question of whether or not it's a copyright violation, or against what ever license you have to use the content. It's really a binary decision: did you create it [not plagiarism], or did someone (something?) else create it [plagiarism]? | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 21:50 | answer | added | Machavity | timeline score: 73 | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 20:42 | comment | added | Mast | @JoshL1516 Because there's simply too much incorrect answers being generated to properly distinguish between them. We do not have the manpower for this level of quality control needed. | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 20:30 | comment | added | JoshL1516 | Why are we completely against ChatGPT? Is everyone afraid for their jobs? Why not simply make a daily limit and if the user continues to churn out unhelpful answers that it is obvious that they did not edit or work on then ban them? | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 20:24 | comment | added | Slate StaffMod | We have begun internal discussions to identify options for addressing this issue. We’re also reading what folks write about the topic on their individual sites, as one piece of assessing the overall impact. While we evaluate, we hope that folks on network sites feel comfortable establishing per-site policies responsive to their communities’ needs. | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 20:10 | history | edited | SlateStaffMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Dec 5, 2022 at 17:40 | answer | added | zcoop98 | timeline score: 8 | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 16:17 | answer | added | Journeyman Geek | timeline score: 183 | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 15:58 | answer | added | Franck Dernoncourt | timeline score: -50 | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 15:18 | comment | added | VLAZ | I just got it from skimming. Technically, the service doesn't allow you sharing output as is your own creation. Which answerers have been doing. But there is probably nothing the service can really do. At most, they'd cancel your plan for that account. If they bother at all. But then you can probably just register a new account ant continue. There is nothing they can really do about that output already in the wild. IMO, the clause is there to just cover themselves if somebody says "Some output from your service was used for <some abuse>" then they can just say it's not their responsibility. | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 15:14 | comment | added | Cerbrus | So, not plagiarism, but misrepresentation? | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 15:12 | comment | added | VLAZ | @Cerbrus interesting - under Restrictions it says "[You may not] (v) represent that output from the Services was human-generated when it is not" | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 15:09 | comment | added | Tinkeringbell Mod | @ErikA fair enough, IF I encounter any I shall pick low-quality contributions as the suspension reason, just to be sure it won't be overturned in a court of copyright law. :) | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 15:01 | comment | added | Cerbrus | Apparently OpenAI gives you full rights to the output of the conversation: "As between the parties and to the extent permitted by applicable law, you own all Input, and subject to your compliance with these Terms, OpenAI hereby assigns to you all its right, title and interest in and to Output." (source) | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 14:58 | comment | added | Erik A | @Tinkeringbell If copying the work of a ML model is plagiarism is an area of debate, not only for language models but for image generators too, and most voices seem to go to "a model is a tool and tools don't have authorship". If there's no policy, suspending for plagiarism because you've used a language model to help answer something doesn't seem appropriate to me. We need specific policy for this situation | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 14:33 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | The problem is they're deeply plausible but incorrect answers, and they're a ton of work to ferret out. I'd be tempted to just throw them a year's suspension for being a jerk and wasting people's time. I'd even be inclined to destroy their accounts for posting nonsense | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 13:58 | comment | added | Tinkeringbell Mod | @RobertLongson so basically, an awareness campaign that these are things that are already not okay to do? I could live with that. | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 13:44 | comment | added | Robert Longson | @Tinkeringbell it's not that you don't have the power, it's that if 2000 users posted an answer every 3 minutes just after you went to bed you'd have a lot of clean up to do. We'd like to avoid that in the first place, ideally by making as many people as possible aware that they shouldn't do it. | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 13:40 | comment | added | Tinkeringbell Mod | @ShadowTheKidWizard I'm still left wondering why I would need that 'extra power'. I can already suspend users, either for plagiarism or continuous low-quality contributions, regardless of whether those come from ChatGPT or their own skulls. Policies are nice, but I think in this case, it would be a way too specific (limited to ChatGPT, what about other AI generated nonsense?) addition to something that to me seems quite clearly already covered by existing tools I have at my disposal? | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 13:39 | comment | added | Shadow Wizard | @Tinkeringbell "ban", not "block". It's a preventive measure, and give mods the stamp to suspend if someone is found "guilty". | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 13:33 | comment | added | Cerbrus | Technically? Impossible. But as is often the case, there are systematic offenders that are relatively easy to recognize (manually) | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 13:28 | comment | added | Tinkeringbell Mod | @Cerbrus How to 'ban' users from actually posting ChatGPT stuff in the first place? I understand SO made a featured post about it to get it some attention, maybe stop the ones that were considering doing this from actually doing it... but unless SE/SO can come up with a way to determine that the text on someone's clipboard comes from ChatGPT... it can't prevent any user from pasting and posting it. Posting without attribution is already plagiarism, and when attribution is given it should probably end up under extra scrutiny and have no 'return on investment'. | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 13:22 | comment | added | Cerbrus | @Tinkeringbell the problem is when it looks like an answer, smells like an answer, could be an answer, but is actually completely incorrect... And then that user dumps a load of those AI-generated non-answers on a load of questions... That's in a very tiny nutshell why the decision was made on SO to just ban it. | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 13:19 | comment | added | Tinkeringbell Mod | So far, if someone copies text generated by ChatGPT without attribution, it's at the very least plagiarism, so you could argue most of it is already banned. When attribution is given though, that becomes a bit harder, but probably just a case of up/downvoting as appropriately (or deleting if it doesn't answer the actual question because someone only pasted e.g. the title)? | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 13:18 | history | edited | Cerbrus | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Don't tag your edits.
|
| Dec 5, 2022 at 13:14 | history | edited | Adám | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 227 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2022 at 13:10 | history | edited | Cerbrus | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Seeing as the OP is unresponsive to the comments requesting the removal / improvement of that example, I figured I'd just do it myself. The example doesn't help the question in any way.
|
| Dec 5, 2022 at 12:48 | history | asked | Adám | CC BY-SA 4.0 |