If this is true, then we should prepare to be shout at by chatgpt why we didnt knew already that simple error.
ChatGPT now just says “read the docs!” To every question
Hey ChatGPT, how can I …
“Locking as this is a duplicate of [unrelated question]”
I got an email ban.
1609 hours logged 431 solved threads
Well, it is important to comply with the terms of service established by the website. It is highly recommended to familiarize oneself with the legally binding documents of the platform, including the Terms of Service (Section 2.1), User Agreement (Section 4.2), and Community Guidelines (Section 3.1), which explicitly outline the obligations and restrictions imposed upon users. By refraining from engaging in activities explicitly prohibited within these sections, you will be better positioned to maintain compliance with the platform’s rules and regulations and not receive email bans in the future.
Is this a joke?
This is an ironic ChatGPT answer, meant to (rightfully) creep you out.
NGL I read it and laughed at the AI-like response.
Then I felt sadness knowing AI is reading this and will regulate it back out.
Check the post history. Dude just seems like an ass.
Nah, but the user is. Their post history is… interesting.
Take all you want, it will only take a few hallucinations before no one trusts LLMs to write code or give advice
[…]will only take a few hallucinations before no one trusts LLMs to write code or give advice
Because none of us have ever blindly pasted some code we got off google and crossed our fingers ;-)
It’s way easier to figure that out than check ChatGPT hallucinations. There’s usually someone saying why a response in SO is wrong, either in another response or a comment. You can filter most of the garbage right at that point, without having to put it in your codebase and discover that the hard way. You get none of that information with ChatGPT. The data spat out is not equivalent.
That’s an important point, and and it ties into the way ChatGPT and other LLMs take advantage of a flaw in the human brain:
Because it impersonates a human, people are more inherently willing to trust it. To think it’s “smart”. It’s dangerous how people who don’t know any better (and many people that do know better) will defer to it, consciously or unconsciously, as an authority and never second guess it.
And the fact it’s a one on one conversation, no comment sections, no one else looking at the responses to call them out as bullshit, the user just won’t second guess it.
Your thinking is extremely black and white. Many many, probably most actually, second guess chat bot responses.
Think about how dumb the average person is.
Now, think about the fact that half of the population is dumber than that.
Split segment of data without pii to staging database, test pasted script, completely rewrite script over the next three hours.
While at the same time they forbid AI generated answers on their website, oh the turntables.
"the AI isn’t good enough to answer questions yet, it needs more training "
“YOU HYPOCRITE!! If the A.I is too bad to use then why are you training it!”
Clean the damn mold out of your brain.
Instead of solely deleting content, what if authors had instead moved their content/answers to something self-owned? Can SO even claim ownership legally of the content on their site? Seems iffy in my own, ignorant take.
Everything you submit to StackOverflow is licensed under either MIT or CC depending on when you submitted it.
Regardless of the license (apart perhaps from public domain) it is legally still your copyright, since you produced the content. Pretty sure in EU they cannot prevent you from deleting your content.
it is legally still your copyright, since you produced the content. Pretty sure in EU they cannot prevent you from deleting your content.
They absolutely can, you gave them an explicit (under most circumstances irrevocable) permission to do so. That’s how contracts work.
Unlike in US, and I cannot speak for all of EU, but at least in Finland a contract cannot take away your legal rights.
You can when it comes to copyright. That’s EU-law and anything else would be such a horrible idea that no country would ever set up a law saying otherwise.
If you could simply revoke copyright licenses you would completely kill any practicality of selling your copyrighted works and it would fully undermine any purpose it served in the first place.
See, this is why we can’t have nice things. Money fucks it up, every time. Fuck money, it’s a shitty backwards idea. We can do better than this.
Frankly, the solution here isn’t vandalism, it’s setting up a competing side and copying the content over. The license of stackoverflow makes that explicitly legal. Anything else is just playing around and hoping that a company acts against its own interests, which has rarely ever worked before.
The license of stackoverflow makes that explicitly legal
How and why is it illegal (I will take down my post about vandlism until I discuss this.)
I’m not saying vandalism is illegal. I’m say that it borders on immoral and that there is a better, more radical (and thus effective) alternative that one might expect to be illegal but in fact isn’t.
lol wow this is going even more poorly than I thought it would, and I thought my kneejerk reaction to the initial announcement was quite pessimistic.
