Timeline for Proposed changes to Help Center articles to include mention of AI-generated content policy
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 16 at 14:53 | history | edited | JNatStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 59 characters in body
|
| Feb 13 at 15:48 | history | edited | JNatStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
see revision 11 of the question for the parts of the answer marked [status-completed]
|
| Feb 12 at 13:21 | comment | added | user13267 | Knowing an answer "offhand and has the exaxt references on their bookmarks if not their desk." was and should never be a requirement for participating on the site. People are free to do their research and attempt to answer the question, and its nobody's business what tools they use for this research. Other users of the site should only be concerned with whether what actually gets posted on the site is useful or not,rather than obsess over what they think was used to create that post | |
| Feb 12 at 10:32 | comment | added | Nij | Maybe they could have just as easily done the research themselves. Or, more likely, that research is difficult and time-consuming, and a question on Stack Exchange is faster to receive an appropriate answerfrom an expert who knows it offhand and has the exaxt references on their bookmarks if not their desk. This is not comparable to a person asking on Stack Exchange for someone else to copy-paste it into ChatGPT or whatever AIG is coolest today, which would take longer than just s direct query to the AIG. | |
| Feb 9 at 10:53 | comment | added | user13267 | If people could have just gone to the ai platform for answers instead of coming to SE, they could have just as easily googled/gone to a blog/read it from a book, etc and SE would still be unnecessary. This forum is needed so that people are spared the time spent on that research and they get an answer thats hopefully verified by a real person. There is a big difference between using ai as a tool to get to the answer and just copy/pasting whatever it gives out when asking it something | |
| Feb 9 at 9:11 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | A good chunk of the AI posts are literally someone asking a question to chatgpt, and posting it, without reading it or understanding the question A lot of these people are doing the metaphorical equivilent of asking a question from here on say quora or the hyphen site, then taking those answers and cross posting them, which to me feels pretty abusive | |
| Feb 9 at 8:45 | history | edited | Rebecca J. Stones | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 105 characters in body
|
| Feb 9 at 8:40 | comment | added | Rebecca J. Stones | Remember: in this thread, we're only talking about the sites where posts written with the help of AI are permissible. Useful contributions are, as always, welcomed and encouraged. We just want authors of posts that use AI help to acknowledge how it was used. | |
| Feb 9 at 7:45 | history | edited | Rebecca J. Stones | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1199 characters in body
|
| Feb 9 at 7:32 | comment | added | tripleee | I don't object to your objections per se; but they don't convince me that the text is strange or unnecessary. The pressure should be on the presumtive AI answerer to find these (and maybe other) reasons to post their answer even though the policy carefully advises against posting trivial AI answers. | |
| Feb 9 at 7:32 | comment | added | Nij | I think you have missed the point. If someone wants AIG platforms to answer their question, they will ask on the AI platform and get answered on the AIG platform. Stack Exchange is a pointless third wheel to this, so the very fact it has been asked here at all is strong evidence that an AIG platform has not, or will not, or cannot provide the desired answer. Therefore, there is zero reason to think any question on Stack Exchange should be answered on Stack Exchange, by an AIG platform. | |
| Feb 9 at 7:23 | history | answered | Rebecca J. Stones | CC BY-SA 4.0 |