Timeline for Ban ChatGPT network-wide
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 18, 2022 at 18:53 | history | bounty ended | Resistance Is Futile | ||
| Dec 14, 2022 at 14:04 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | @Topcode Stack Overflow also cites sources when it is applicable. However, vast majority of answers simply does not have any source because there aren't any. We are solving problems with our heads. That includes witting explanations of how something works even if it is not explicitly documented anywhere. | |
| Dec 14, 2022 at 13:36 | comment | added | Topcode | Not only that, on the various sites I frequent, citing sources is encouraged if not required. | |
| Dec 14, 2022 at 13:19 | comment | added | Topcode | @ResistanceIsFutile “only if you cannot find that information either on SO or elsewhere.” Which is almost never. Despite what you may think SE is not special, and it doesn’t have access to anything that the rest of the internet doesn’t. | |
| Dec 14, 2022 at 13:13 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | @Topcode That is what doing research means: searching first and asking questions only if you cannot find that information either on SO or elsewhere. And if you have found it and you don't understand something, then you need to explain what is exact problem and what you don't understand. | |
| Dec 14, 2022 at 13:10 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | @Topcode I am not going to focus on rest of SE because some rules may be different on some sites. But idea behind SO was not creating duplicate of documentation that can be easily found elsewhere, though some duplication will always exist. Idea was creating high quality repository of knowledge and answers to common (or not so common) questions related to programming. So when you have a problem you can easily find solution because someone before already had that problem and it was solved on SO. | |
| Dec 14, 2022 at 12:45 | comment | added | Topcode | @ResistanceIsFutile “there are problems where Google or AI will not give you answer,” a very small number of problems. If you think that if an answer can be found elsewhere it doesn’t belong on stack exchange (against the idea of stack exchange btw) then almost no answers could ever be posted, and no questions asked. | |
| Dec 14, 2022 at 8:45 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | @Topcode I don't understand what is the point you are trying to make. If you can Google and get your answer, then it does not make sense to ask on SE. If you could ask AI then it wouldn't make sense to ask on SE. Having said that, there are problems where Google or AI will not give you answer, so then you would ask on SE. Of course, people ask questions without doing research all the time, but that is a different issue. | |
| Dec 14, 2022 at 3:10 | comment | added | Topcode | @ResistanceIsFutile “Even if AI would be able to generate correct answers, then we could just ask AI instead.” This makes astonishingly little sense. Apply this logic to say, doing research, and now SE has zero reason to exist. | |
| Dec 13, 2022 at 9:24 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | Well, posting nonsense is something commonsensically bad. It's grounds for potential account deletion. I don't think there's an argument for posting trash being acceptable in any way, even if it's plausible garbage, rather than the outcome of a cat walking all over the keyboard | |
| Dec 13, 2022 at 7:34 | comment | added | MarcInManhattan | @41686d6564standsw.Palestine Presumably the rule would be posted somewhere obvious before going into effect, so I think that anyone who violated it wouldn't have much excuse. Anyone who had a good excuse for not being aware of the rule could argue that to the mods on a case-by-case basis. | |
| Dec 7, 2022 at 1:46 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | @FranckDernoncourt to be fair - the main advantage here is we can take a look, decide its crap and delete it faster. | |
| Dec 6, 2022 at 21:06 | comment | added | Franck Dernoncourt | @PM2Ring good point, I just meant giving attribution to ChatGPT. | |
| Dec 6, 2022 at 21:06 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | @FranckDernoncourt Nothing is ever completely correct. If you could get excellent accuracy then you would probably first ask AI. Just like answers on SO are not always correct even some posted by experts. | |
| Dec 6, 2022 at 21:04 | comment | added | Franck Dernoncourt | @ResistanceIsFutile "Even if AI would be able to generate correct answers, then we could just ask AI instead". No. Only true if AI is always correct. | |
| Dec 6, 2022 at 11:43 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | I fully support complete ban. Even if AI would be able to generate correct answers, then we could just ask AI instead. No need for posting such content on the network. We need to leave Stack Exchange for problems only people can solve. Anything else will not work in the long run and will cause more harm than good. | |
| Dec 6, 2022 at 0:16 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | Exactly - that's the same line of thinking I had | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 20:47 | comment | added | 41686d6564 | My initial reaction to "I'd be tempted to start with longer suspensions" was that it might be too harsh but the fact is a) any user who does that must know exactly what he's doing, b) said user would at least suspect that doing so might be against the rules, and c) the user will have done that multiple times already as it's not easy to identify that behavior with one or two answers; in most cases, one needs a stream of AI-generated answers to spot the pattern. Based on that, I don't really think such punishment is too harsh. | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 17:21 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | @Franck You can't give proper attribution: ChatGPT doesn't identify its sources. And the text it emits may be derived from the work of a few authors or thousands (if not millions). The topic of AI plagiarism is mentioned in academia.stackexchange.com/q/191197 for | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 16:41 | comment | added | Franck Dernoncourt | Ok then I think your answer and mine are similar. | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 16:40 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | and its verified to be a workable/correct answer. | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 16:39 | comment | added | Franck Dernoncourt | so you're ok to use ChatGPT in an answer provided it has the proper attributions and it's a correct answer? | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 16:38 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | If its garbage, we'd delete it anyway and suspend the user if there's a bunch of poor quality contributions but seems a more polite way to do it | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 16:28 | comment | added | Franck Dernoncourt | so you're ok to use ChatGPT in an answer provided it has the proper attributions? | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 16:21 | history | edited | Mithical | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 20 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2022 at 16:17 | history | answered | Journeyman Geek | CC BY-SA 4.0 |