Meta Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for meta-discussion of the Stack Exchange family of Q&A websites. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I’m NOT suggesting a network wide ban - that already has a separate post.
I recently noticed that a user posted a ChatGPT generated answer that totally failed to answer the question that was asked (and they didn’t mention the use of ChatGPT). I custom flagged it, but I looked back at MSE, and since I don’t think it’s been discussed yet:
Should we ban ChatGPT answers on MSE?
I tend to lean towards banning it as there is a rather high chance of it being wrong or failing to answer the question
I say ban them (which they already are treated like, we've deleted quite a few already as moderators). As you mentioned, on the objective questions here those answers can be wrong (often are), so the same policy as on Stack Overflow applies.
On the subjective questions, well... Ideally, Good Subjective answers are written from experience. Something is likely informing your opinion. Don't just use the AI to regurgitate an opinion for you, write down your actual opinion and why it is the way it is. In that sense, this quote from the SO policy still applies:
GPT risks breaking readers’ trust that our site provides answers written by subject-matter experts.
The subject-matter experts in this case being users with an informed opinion on anything discussed here, because they have their own experiences with the problem that's being discussed. Those are the kinds of opinions I expect to encounter on posts here, not the ones generated by our evil AI overlords.
Well, practically speaking it is banned to some extent. Some individual thinks they are clever and posts a reply that clearly is generated by ChatGPT and gets suspended for posting nonsense. There's no 'formal' rule because don't post crap is obvious.
I think there's an important point to be made that meta supports the network as a whole, and as such, well posts need to show understanding of the question, context and sometimes history of the network.
So far, a good chunk of ChatGPT posts we've run into fall into 3 broad categories - they tend to be new users with no apparent activity elsewhere, folks answering the question on how to detect ChatGPT or spammers. It’s also invariably 'new' users or at least throwaway accounts.
And frankly I've not seen any actual 'considerate' use of the tool, nor any real awareness of the network in these posts.
Fundamentally, the way it shows a certain lack of effort, respect for the commons, is essentially plagiarism and frankly is folks trying their luck.
When we do suspensions - here's a strange thing, the users rarely respond. I got an apology on Pets where I warned someone. Here? I can suspend someone a year and... no reply. It’s almost like they don't care, or want to find out if they can get away with it.
With nearly all these being 'new' users, I also feel like there's no good intent being demonstrated here.
Let’s say, hypothetically - someone trained a ChatGPT type tool on - well meta. Maybe the collected works of Shog9. It answers questions perfectly with awareness of the actual question and doesn't give generic prepackaged dog chow. I'd certainly be impressed - and consider it useful. So far that has not been the case.
On the other hand, the poor quality, lack of effort and the noise these posts create mean they don't add value and should be discouraged.
Basically, I'd say 'don't try your luck' if you want to do it, and we reserve the right to deal with folks trying their luck as we deem appropriate.
