57

As by question title if the company considers (by their own claim) Meta just a "minority" of the network userbase, why wasn't the new policy about AI generated content advertised more to the majority of users that do not interact with meta?

To put this in context currently on Stack Overflow Meta the post "Temporary policy: ChatGPT is banned" is still featured despite that community made policy being probably overridden by the company imposed one. At the same time I am not aware of an official post about the new policy being available on SO, despite it being the site with the bigger userbase and the one where the AI generated content issue has been more relevant.

Currently, the company has been seen removing the tag from multiple posts about the moderator strike, yet now-wrong information that was rendered obsoleted by their new policy is ignored.

I expect that something so huge would be advertised everywhere on the network in order to reach as many users as possible. Deciding to only post this on Meta after calling out Meta as just a non-representative minority of the actual userbase leaves a bitter aftertaste: it looks like the company already knew that the post would cause an huge backslash and tried to contain the damage by artificially decreasing the number of users that would see the policy. Spoiler warning: it didn't work.

Therefore, I am not asking to make the policy more visible now, there is a separate question for that. I am asking why we come to the point we needed to ask for this and why that wasn't the natural choice when posting the policy. For sake of comparison, the blog has historically been made far more visible than this, despite being about product promotions that many users don't care about in the majority of cases.

Note: It was pointed out to me that apparently the new policy does not ban the deletion of AI generated content but just the detection of AI generated content. Since in my humble opinion this is about as clear as black ink, the original question still stands. Just know that maybe the SO "Temporary policy: ChatGPT is banned" post is still valid (at least partially ).

Improve this question
8
  • 26
    Guidance shared in private indicates that deletion of the vast majority of AI-generated content is effectively banned. Frustratingly, the company is not admitting this publicly, and relying on moderators' promises to keep privately shared information private to maintain confusion among other contributors about what exactly the policy is.
    – Bryan Krause
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 14:31
  • Probably because it's a policy that applies to how moderators are supposed to moderate, not to how users are supposed to behave.
    – kaya3
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 15:34
  • @kaya3 result: went on Arqade some day ago, a local mod didn't even notice the new policy yet. It is also worth to consider that as some other posts point out the policy was given on a day that is a public holiday in America
    – ꓢPArcheon
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 15:38
  • 8
    @kaya3 That's not true, since moderators act on behalf of the communities. It's only delaying the inevitable, since most of the decisions around what to moderate and how harshly to moderate it were community-driven. So what communities will see are moderators not enforcing the community standards.
    – Thomas Owens
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 15:43
  • 1
    I haven't seen anything that says that the company wants to impose a policy saying that AI-generated posts are allowed. Banning AI-generated posts and privately telling mods not to moderate those posts can be mutually exclusive. I suspect they don't want to signal to users that they can go ahead and post AI-generated answers willy nilly knowing they won't get suspended or banned.
    – Cave Johnson
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 19:33
  • 1
    @CaveJohnson: If that is what they were trying to do, it's... to put it charitably, an unwise plan. Users were (are) posting a massive number of AI-generated posts before, during, and after the policy change, especially on the larger sites. "Signaling" anything to those users is irrelevant. They're going to do it anyway.
    – Kevin
    Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 20:50
  • 1
    Would Fix the misleading parts of the new policy on AI-authored content and feature it answer your question?
    – starball
    Commented Jun 6, 2023 at 0:18
  • 3
    @starball technically? Nope. That question is a request for some actions that would solve the issue. Here I am asking why the issue was crafted in the first place. I expect that something so huge would be advertised everywhere on the network in order to reach as many users as possible. Deciding to only post this on Meta after calling out Meta as just a non-representative minority of the actual userbase leaves a bitter aftertaste: it almost seems like the company already knew that the reaction to this would be bad for them and tried to make it as little visible as they could.
    – ꓢPArcheon
    Commented Jun 6, 2023 at 7:39

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
17
+50

I expect that something so huge would be advertised everywhere on the network in order to reach as many users as possible.

I am gonna play the cynic here: this isn't about the community's benefit; any user that engages with this site makes the company money in some form.

Clicks, impressions, page views, ad views, average number of clowns on Thursdays, we don't know how the company makes its money, but more users equals more money, that is pretty sure.

  • A user that does post their own answers is great. Makes money.
  • A user that posts AI-generated junk is okay-ish. Still makes money.
  • A user that gets banned for it is bad. Makes no money. A revenue stream was killed.

The company has no interest in having AI-generated crap on their pages. They would very much prefer the first user I think. But the second makes them money, too. They are not interested in lifting any restrictions, they are interested in not removing users from the platform. That is what this means. They did remove the thing that costs them money: the enforcement of the rules. The rule itself, well that is an afterthought. Doesn't hurt the bottom line at all having a meta post somewhere that is not enforced.

Improve this answer
8
  • 4
    So what you’re saying is that to Stack Exchange, all of us are nothing but money making clowns.
    – Thomas Markov
    Commented Jun 7, 2023 at 14:02
  • To be fair, I never said I don't partially agree with your viewpoint and the actual reasons behind this- quite the opposite. But this post is here either to get an official answer (true or lie, doesn't matter) or to show that this question was willing ignored too. Both outcome are fine to me. That said, obviously I am fine with users answering too.
    – ꓢPArcheon
    Commented Jun 7, 2023 at 14:03
  • 1
    @ThomasMarkovisonStrike In the end... yes. And I don't mind. They are a for-profit company. I don't expect them to be my cuddly well-meaning friend. That is what I have actual friends for. There is nothing left here, if they don't make money. So I really want them to make money. I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm just saying that it is a rational explanation and probably the easiest, for what is an open question.
    – nvoigt
    Commented Jun 7, 2023 at 14:07
  • 1
    @SPArcheon Oh, sorry, I didn't get that. It was tagged as policy discussion and you didn't say anything to that effect in the question.
    – nvoigt
    Commented Jun 7, 2023 at 14:08
  • 3
    sorry, maybe I was unclear. I am perfectly fine with your answer and I mostly agree on some points. What I meant is that while I also think the answer is "money" like you suggest I still posted this question to invite an explanation from the staff . Which probably won't come but in that case at least they won't be able to say "but nobody asked".
    – ꓢPArcheon
    Commented Jun 7, 2023 at 14:16
  • 2
    The public sites are currently mostly an avenue to sell their paid SAAS product, Teams, where a company has a private instance that looks a lot like the public sites, for internal questions and answers (you'll see ads for this all over the public site). So, no, users that post AI junk do not make them money, and it's harmful to the reputation of the sites overall if they are flooded with junk. Who wants to buy a service from a company known for hosting a ChatGPT-repost website? You may be describing their thinking correctly, but it doesn't make much sense.
    – Bryan Krause
    Commented Jun 7, 2023 at 14:28
  • 1
    @BryanKrauseisonstrike I think this comment section is not the best place to discuss about that but had I to guess I think we are missing part of the plan here. My assumption is that the company is working on something that we don't know yet and will cause even more backfire than this and the current policy will "make sense" in that regard. Note: "make sense" does not imply it will be good, just that it will be clear why they wanted to do that. Perhaps... some form of tool that autocraft answers to dupes and so on? Something that would make the ones seeking homework help happy.
    – ꓢPArcheon
    Commented Jun 7, 2023 at 14:33
  • 4
    @SPArcheon I think they are frightened - there have been news articles in many venues since around December declaring the end of StackOverflow and the new era of ChatGPT as a primary method for answering programming questions. There have been recent layoffs. Many AI integrations, including an AI tool that presents an AI-generated answer immediately when you post a question here, would not require allowing AI content generally on the site, as long as it's marked separately as AI-generated. I think it's tough to make good decisions when scared, especially on time pressure.
    – Bryan Krause
    Commented Jun 7, 2023 at 14:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .