For example, Pakistan receives 3.6x more suspensions for GPT usage than their baseline participation rates should imply. Bangladesh receives 2.7x more suspensions than the base participation rate justifies. India receives 1.75x more suspensions. On the other hand, the United States receives 0.6x the suspension rate, alongside Sweden, Great Britain, and Australia. While we unfortunately can’t share the raw data from our conclusions, we hope that these data points help to convince you that our alarm is justified.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
[...] how exactly does that indicate antagonistic bias against those users? Have you ruled out the possibility that users from those countries are just proportionally violating the current AI-generated-content policies more than people from other countries? Or that a larger proportion of users from those countries are violating the policy compared to proportions of users in other individual countries? The reality is that there are countries where lying and fraud are just part of business / culture. Why would you rule out the possibility that certain cultures or subcultures care less about following the current AI-generated-content policy and won't mind violating our policies to do... whatever it is they're trying to?
For example, Wikipedia has a page on List of countries by intentional homicide rate. If you look at that page, you will find that the rate distribution by country is not- in fact- uniform (flat)... Does that make the people who sourced or compiled that that information... racist? Obviously not. So even if I observe that usernames or profile pictures of users who I have strong reason to suspect for violating per-site policies- such even as self-admittance/"confession"- are coming from a particular demographic (which I do), neither does that make me racist- as long as those usernames and profile pictures do not form part of my analysis (which they do not).
Adding to that, there is data that shows that developers in different countries have different sentiments about AI tools: Your 2023 SO dev survey.
- 83.6% of respondents from India use or plan on using AI tools, and from Brazil, 78.0%. (the top two countries in that response category)
- 82.2% of respondents from Brazil view AI tools favourably. (the top country in that response category)
- 15.4% of respondents from India think the most important benefit to AI tools is improved accuracy in coding, and from Brazil, 13.4%. (the top two countries by proportion of that response)
- 55.2% of respondents from India trust in the accuracy of AI, and from Brazil, 45.0%. (the top two countries in that response category)
And then there's the fact that sideshowbarker, who (from my understanding) was carrying out a lot of the moderation of ChatGPT flags on SO, didn't even use these detectors.
Please note that “freely given” is important here: please do not, under any circumstances, try to trick users into admitting GPT usage, lure them into saying it, or otherwise coerce a response. Even a user saying they have used GPT in general may not count unless they specifically say they have used it here, or for this contribution.
But why? How is a solicited admission any less legitimate than a freely given one?
The amount of content deleted for GPT usage is truly astounding across the network.
The amount of new and old AI-generated content that I continue to find on a daily basis on SO is also astounding.
