-61

The Role of AI in Question and Answer Sites: Addressing Concerns of Plagiarism and Quality

Introduction

This document aims to shed light on the role of AI, specifically ChatGPT, in question and answer sites, while addressing concerns regarding plagiarism and the quality of AI-generated responses. It is essential to understand that ChatGPT is not synonymous with plagiarism or low-quality content, as it operates based on the information provided to it from various databases. This document will explore the need for open-mindedness when electing new moderators and propose a balanced approach that acknowledges the potential of AI while maintaining the responsibility of users to ensure quality in questions and answers.

The Nature of AI-generated Responses

AI, such as ChatGPT, reproduces responses based on the knowledge it has been trained on, utilizing a wide range of databases, both public and private. However, it is crucial to differentiate between requests for general examples and specific code created by individuals. AI should be regarded as a tool that aims to provide user-oriented responses, rather than being seen as a source of plagiarism.

Challenges in Adaptation and Moderation

The challenges faced by question and answer sites are not solely related to AI. The adaptability of these sites and individuals to the rapidly evolving landscape of AI integration plays a significant role. The pace at which questions are asked and answered, in relation to moderation response time, can impact the overall functionality of such platforms. It is important to acknowledge that blaming AI alone for low-quality or plagiarized responses is an oversimplification. Rather, it is a matter of adapting moderation practices and the community's mindset to accommodate this new paradigm.

The Influence of Toxicity and User Preference

The presence of toxic behavior within communities, as observed in sites like Stack Overflow and Stack Overflow en español, has led many users to seek assistance from AI platforms like ChatGPT. Users often find it easier to interact with a chatbot than to face potential dismissal or unhelpful comments from human users. Consequently, ChatGPT has gained popularity as a source of guidance and solutions for various queries.

The Journey Towards Improved Responses

As ChatGPT continues to enhance the quality of its responses, and users become adept at formulating precise and comprehensive questions, the distinction between AI-generated and user-generated responses will become less noticeable. It is essential to recognize the ongoing development of AI and its potential for improvement over time, contrasting with the stagnation often seen in moderation practices.

An Evolutionary Approach to Moderation: A Feature Request and Site Recommendation

A balanced approach to moderation involves determining the accuracy of responses, regardless of their source. Allowing users to mark AI-generated answers as such and avoiding reputation changes based on votes would ensure transparency. Similarly, implementing systematic review queues would facilitate quality assessment of questions originating from AI sources. The responsibility for maintaining the quality of questions and answers rests with the users, highlighting the importance of their active participation in the moderation process.

Proposal:

  1. Modify the question and answer form by adding a checkbox that indicates when a question or answer is generated using AI.

  2. Ensure that the reputation of users involved in AI-marked questions or answers remains unaffected.

  3. Implement a system within the queues to easily identify questions and answers that have been marked as AI-generated.

  4. Exclude AI-generated content that has been marked from the established moderation limits within the queues.

The Importance of Valuing Volunteer Contributors

While numerical metrics are important for businesses, it is crucial to also recognize the value of volunteer contributors within question and answer sites. The 600 votes typically gathered during the moderators' strike may not be sufficient evidence for immediate change or meeting the demands of moderators and a significant portion of the community. Personally, I disagree with the policies implemented thus far and believe that the importance of volunteers should not be overshadowed by mere numerical considerations.

Conclusion

In conclusion, AI, including ChatGPT, cannot be simplistically labeled as a source of plagiarism or low-quality content. It is a tool that responds based on the knowledge it has been trained on, and its implementation requires a balanced approach. The evolution of question and answer sites should involve open-mindedness, adaptability, and recognition of the potential benefits AI can bring. By embracing AI while maintaining user responsibility for quality, question and answer platforms can thrive in the changing landscape of technological advancements, all while acknowledging and valuing the contributions of dedicated volunteers.

While the solutions proposed by moderators adhere to a zero-tolerance approach towards AI, the reality is that large corporations are increasingly embracing the idea of AI implementation.

19
  • 26
    Sorry, you seem to have completely missed why people have a problem with AI generated and aren't proposing anything here that would solve the problems. It's cool to be excited about a new technology and the capabilities it will open up. But it's important to be realistic about its capabilities and how to use it correctly, instead of just assuming it's something that must be allowed to exist here.
    – mason
    Jun 13, 2023 at 0:47
  • 2
    As a note, it might be good for you to make it clear what your specific feature request or discussion question is -- I see the point(s) you're making, but it's not as clear to me what you'd like from answers.
    – HDE 226868
    Jun 13, 2023 at 0:50
  • 14
    When you use ChatGPT to provide posts, you plagiarize from ChatGPT unless you indicate that your post is ChatGPT generated/improved. But, then another problem arises. If the users of our sites want ChatGPT generated posts, why don't they go to ChatGPT directly?
    – Nobody
    Jun 13, 2023 at 3:31
  • Normally, for chatGPT to generate a quality and coherent response you have to use a high-level prompt, not all users know how to do it, they don't even know it... why don't they go directly to ChatGPT, because it hasn't been suggested to them. ..
    – user1322023
    Jun 13, 2023 at 3:54
  • 3
    "The 600 votes typically gathered during the moderators' strike" What is this supposed to mean? Not many posts get 600 votes, up or down, strike or no. If you are trying to account for the number of signatories to the open letter they are more than double your number already, but I don't see how that's relevant here, or what's "typical" in any sense.
    – tripleee
    Jun 13, 2023 at 4:12
  • 17
    Your proposal and especially your responses to answerers seems to repeatedly reinforce the impression that you have not thought about how to cope with bad actors, which is the central problem with AI-generated answers which prompted the moderator strike in the first place. Secondarily, you have not done a good job of convincing us that Stack Overflow should accept even good-faith AI answers. Yes, there are situations where AI generates correct answers, but that doesn't mean we need to accept them on Stack Overflow.
    – tripleee
    Jun 13, 2023 at 4:23
  • 17
    I also find it offensive that you are framing this as demonstrating a "need for open-mindedness when electing new moderators."
    – tripleee
    Jun 13, 2023 at 4:23
  • 1
    "why don't they go directly to ChatGPT, because it hasn't been suggested to them." You seem to underestimate the users. If ChatGPT is so hard to use, how could we see so many of them? I personally have seen many ChatGPT posts with added spam links on many of our sites. I also use ChatGPT to help me with my own research. So, I know it's not that hard to use.
    – Nobody
    Jun 13, 2023 at 4:35
  • 1
    The user brings their question to Stack Overflow because they want their doubt to be analyzed by human programmers in the same way they desire an answer created by human programmers, whether or not assisted by AI. If they want an AI-generated solution, they would go directly to an AI without having to resort to intermediaries. Those who copy and paste text from ChatGPT as an answer generally lack the ability or do not care to address secondary questions or engage in technical discussions that may accompany the answer, which only adds noise to the site. Jun 13, 2023 at 4:45
  • 2
    Plagiarism is where someone passes off content as their own that they didn't produce by themselves. Like here.
    – philipxy
    Jun 13, 2023 at 4:54
  • 4
    I had to laugh at "users become adept at formulating precise and comprehensive questions" - 30 years of the interwebz and "How my mum uses Google" has not changed one iota.
    – Tetsujin
    Jun 13, 2023 at 7:11
  • 16
    You have serious misunderstanding how ChatGPT works. It is a language model, not a knowledge base. It can write perfect prose, because that is it's purpose. It cannot give you correct information because it was never meant to do that and if it does then it is purely by chance. There is no intelligence of any kind behind it. Jun 13, 2023 at 9:42
  • 4
  • 9
    This question itself looks like it was written by ChatGPT.
    – kaya3
    Jun 13, 2023 at 20:05
  • 3

6 Answers 6

26

However, it is crucial to differentiate between requests for general examples and specific code created by individuals.

Why? That's never made clear.

AI should be regarded as a tool that aims to provide user-oriented responses, rather than being seen as a source of plagiarism.

Again, you're making an assertion here. But you have not provided anything to back up your claim. If someone copies output from somewhere and pastes it here without attribution, that's plagiarism. Doesn't matter whether it originated from an AI or not.

It is important to acknowledge that blaming AI alone for low-quality or plagiarized responses is an oversimplification.

I don't think that's important to acknowledge, because that was the status quo for years. Low quality contributions to these sites have been a problem that we've been fighting against for years, well before these LLM AI's gained prominence. The problems is that AI makes it that much easier to be a one stop shop for semi-customized content, and it's hard to deal with the kind of volume it enables.

Rather, it is a matter of adapting moderation practices and the community's mindset to accommodate this new paradigm.

We don't have to accommodate this new paradigm. The moderator team was doing an admirable job of keeping up with it.

As ChatGPT continues to enhance the quality of its responses, and users become adept at formulating precise and comprehensive questions, the distinction between AI-generated and user-generated responses will become less noticeable.

If AI's are one day able to actually understand the questions as well as humans can, then at that point policies can change. They aren't there yet. They can quickly write a response that's well written and certainly related to the question being asked. But they're not yet at the point where they can consistently understand the actual problem being asked. At least on Stack Overflow - I haven't paid much attention to other sites.

A balanced approach to moderation entails determining the accuracy of responses, regardless of their origin.

That's great - but moderators often don't have the subject matter expertise to evaluate the accuracy of an answer, and that's never been something that's part of their "job description". They're there to handle exceptional cases - plagiarism, spam, abusiveness etc. Okay, if someone is repeatedly posting terrible answers that make no attempt to solve the problem and are full of grammatical errors they might intercede. But that's rare. It's always been on regular users to use their votes to judge quality of the content. And given enough time, any answer written with decent grammar and sounds related to the question will garner the user far more reputation points than it loses, regardless of whether the answer actually addresses the problem being asked. That's why stopping this massive flood right away was so important.

Allowing users to mark AI-generated answers as such and preventing reputation changes based on votes would ensure transparency.

The reason people post AI generated answers is to gain reputation points. So they're very unlikely to actually mark their answer as AI generated. If we wanted AI generated answers, it'd be very easy for the company to automatically interface with Chat GPT's AI, feed it the question and tag details and a list of Stack Overflow rules, and have the site automatically generate an answer. There's no need for any regular users to go off and do that.

While the solutions proposed by moderators adhere to a zero-tolerance approach towards AI

Their stance is zero tolerance right now, as the flood of AI generated answers would overwhelm the site otherwise. That doesn't mean they all don't think that it has some place here, though some of them may be of that opinion.

the reality is that large corporations are increasingly embracing the idea of AI implementation

Just because some large companies have found a use case or a potential use case for AI doesn't mean that it's appropriate here.

  1. Modify the question and answer form by adding a checkbox that indicates when a question or answer is generated using AI.

Do you honestly believe that users seeking to inflate their reputation points will mark AI generated answers as being AI generated? The answer should be a clear no.

  1. Ensure that the reputation of users involved in AI-marked questions or answers remains unaffected.

Voting is supposed to be a means for others to assess the quality of an answer. It's not perfect, but it's what we've got to work with. If you remove that, then it puts even less enticement for users to ensure their posts actually address the problem posed in the question. Again: if we want to bring in AI generated answers, the company can do that quite easily. It's something a junior developer could probably implement. There's no need for regular users to go fetch them themselves.

Implement a system within the queues to easily identify questions and answers that have been marked as AI-generated.

You're still relying on self-reporting. That's just not going to be feasible.


Sorry, I just don't see any actual benefit from your proposal, as it fails to recognize the actual problems with the current generation of AI. It sounds like you are just a big fan of AI and think it belongs everywhere, without taking the time to think critically about whether it actually fits or not.

12
  • i have added a proposal.
    – user1322023
    Jun 13, 2023 at 1:37
  • 1
    @ArcanisGK507 I've updated my answer to address your edits.
    – mason
    Jun 13, 2023 at 1:45
  • and it's hard to deal with the kind of volume it enables. I think this is not a problem related to the AI, this is a problem related to the moderation structure and existing limitations...
    – user1322023
    Jun 13, 2023 at 1:48
  • The moderator team was doing an admirable job of keeping up with it. this is where the problem really lies, no one has said that they have to change what they are doing. It's like when they tell you that you have to change the version of the development framework. I imagine you're one of those who thinks: the current one is perfect
    – user1322023
    Jun 13, 2023 at 1:51
  • 12
    @ArcanisGK507 Yes, we had a problem dealing with quality problems before AI. But AI makes it much worse. If you can go out and generate answers to a dozen questions in the space of 10 minutes, and just one of them gets upvoted and the rest get downvoted, you'll still come out more reputation points than you started with. So identifying those that plagiarize and banning them is very important to maintaining the quality. Answer this for me please: if answers can be generated by AI, why shouldn't Stack Overflow Inc simply implement that as part of the site? Why must users copy paste them here?
    – mason
    Jun 13, 2023 at 1:54
  • 3
    @ArcanisGK507 "no has has said they have to change what they are doing" - from what you just said there, it sounds like you're not familiar with why this strike is taking place in the first place. Please take a moment to find out.
    – mason
    Jun 13, 2023 at 1:56
  • 2
    @ArcanisGK507 Also...I'm a lead developer for my team, and I insist that we keep up to date on our libraries and frameworks, and that we don't remain on platforms that are dead/dying. I don't know why you think it's relevant to bring that up here, but you seem to have misjudged my position. My saying that answers from AI services shouldn't be copy/pasted here doesn't mean I'm not comfortable with using new technology. I just don't assume that because something exists we must use it. I'd advocate that you take an equally pragmatic approach.
    – mason
    Jun 13, 2023 at 1:58
  • you'll still come out more reputation points than you started with. That is why my proposal allows you to mark that it comes from an AI, in such a way that it does not give you a reputation... surely you read my proposal?
    – user1322023
    Jun 13, 2023 at 2:03
  • I cannot change my position, because you say that something is immature, when it is no longer so, just like people, the AI will never be perfect and if the excuse is that, in the end the users are still responsible for the content they add to the site Whether they use an AI or not, the treatment in the end will be the same... if there is more volume of work, they are absolutely right, but completely limiting the use of AI will not be the solution, the problem and the solution is the idiosyncrasy of the user and moderators.
    – user1322023
    Jun 13, 2023 at 2:07
  • 15
    @ArcanisGK507 I've seen you accuse multiple people here of not having read your proposal. Yes, we've all read it. We don't agree that it will have any positive effect, nor is it practical. Do really believe users will self-mark their answers as having been generated by an AI? Why would they do that? And if we wanted AI generated answers here, why wouldn't Stack Overflow go have some junior dev tie into the Chat GPT API and make it happen automatically?
    – mason
    Jun 13, 2023 at 2:07
  • What do you think will happen to the company when MS starts to get more hands on this product?
    – user1322023
    Jun 13, 2023 at 2:17
  • Let's not go around the matter any more, let's see how everything evolves... and when you see where everything is going to end, I hope you come back here and change your mind.
    – user1322023
    Jun 13, 2023 at 2:18
13

My position stems from usage of Stack Overflow, and might not withstand for other sites.

I have two major problems with this proposition:

A user qualified to verify AI-generated answer, doesn't need AI to create an answer

  • If you are a subject-matter expert, you don't need ChatGPT to generate an answer: you are good on your own.
  • If you aren't a subject-matter expert, you can't reliably verify an answer provided by ChatGPT, and shouldn't answer that question.

Plus, if a question is so trivial or well researched that ChatGPT can reliably answer it, then chances are pretty high that said question is a duplicate, and shouldn't be answered in the first place.

Uncontrolled posting of AI answers

For the Stack Exchange network to exist, it is essential that users are reasonably sure in the adequacy of answers.

Since we cannot in any reasonable way guarantee that a provider of a ChatGPT answer will in fact verify the answer, it is safe to assume that many such answers will not be verified by the author. So we need some additional safeguards in place.

To ease creation of said safeguards, your idea can be taken one step further: every question receives an automatic answer from ChatGPT (from a specific account without any reputation), and users are still prohibited from providing AI-generated answers.

But it places a significant burden of verification such answers onto the community (possibly through some additional queue), without any obvious profit (of community), in my opinion.


Some more thoughts on long-run perspective: if/when "AI" will begin to produce reliable answers, Stack Exchange will immediately become obsolete, because there will not be any need to store answers somewhere, if you can always ask it again.

12

Allowing users to mark AI-generated answers as such and preventing reputation changes based on votes would ensure transparency. Similarly, evaluating the quality of questions originating from AI sources can be facilitated through systematic review queues. The responsibility for maintaining the quality of questions and answers rests with the users, emphasizing the importance of their active involvement in the moderation process.

I don't think this will be a worthwhile fit for the sites in general. As a personal stance, which I've seen voiced by others on the sites I participate/visit, a major issue is that AI generated answers can not only be wrong, but be extremely confidently wrong such as in this recent case involving lawyers. How do you verify that these answers are indeed correct? With the immense amount of answers (and questions) in review queues already, there would need to be a lot more support to sift through a lot more nonsense.

Even worse is when the answer looks correct, but breaks down upon closer review. Granted, human written answers can fall into this category too. However, AI generated answers in general consistently look good while having no indication of validity, and there is no possible way to have a convincing track record. It can already be a challenge to manage human written answers that are poorly written or contain bad information. Adding additional answers that have no track record (and no reasonable way to build a track record) is just adding a lot more work for not much gain. At the end of the day, with the availability of these AI chatbots, why would question askers need other people to dump their question into an AI for them? They could do it themselves.

Ignoring malicious actors, the problem goes further with AI answers with fabricated information. Let’s take the Travel Stack Exchange site as an example. If an asker wants to travel to country A, but their visa has a mismatch in their name, and the country recently had a policy change to require all details be a match, they would need to reapply for the visa. An average human answerer may start writing the wrong answer, go to link a relevant section in the country's immigration page, and see that the details have changed and thus change their answer. An AI may answer based on the old information it was trained on, or even worse fabricate an answer and citation, and not have any counter checks. If the answer requires research to answer correctly, are we expecting all reviewers to do the research before judging the AI answer? If so, why not just have them do the research and write an answer directly?

In its current state, AI-generated answers are not suitable for the site and likely won't be for awhile. There isn't anything stopping people from just using the AI to ask their questions directly, meaning they won't add significant value to the site in terms of quality. This would mean there would be a significant increase in the amount of curation and moderation to perform for not much gain in terms of quality answers.

19
  • a major issue is that AI generated answers can not only be wrong, but be extremely confidently wrong And if the answer doesn't come from an AI, on the contrary... what happens when it comes from a normal user? I think the same rules will continue to apply...
    – user1322023
    Jun 13, 2023 at 1:44
  • It's like preaching that users are never wrong and that everything a user says is correct or an absolute truth...
    – user1322023
    Jun 13, 2023 at 1:45
  • 7
    @ArcanisGK507 Generally, humans that aren't sure tend to make obvious mistakes or express a lower level of confidence in their responses. Not always, but often. And when they don't, and someone calls them out on it, then conscientious users will own up to their mistake and correct their answer, or remove it. I know I've certainly made mistakes and had to clean up after myself before. The problem is that when someone just copy/pastes an answer rapid fire from ChatGPT, without caring whether it's accurate or not, and they can do it dozens of times in a short time span, it's hard to deal with.
    – mason
    Jun 13, 2023 at 1:48
  • 5
    Yes, which is why we have curation. However, curation is already a losing battle with more to review than there is time to review it. Keep in mind almost all curation done across all the stack exchange sites are by volunteers, myself included. There has only ever been ONE day since I've started curating where the question review queue, which I filtered extensively to my knowledge area, was nearing empty. No other queues I have access to have reached that stage. How are the volunteers expected to handle all of that AND the AI answers that are thrown in without effort and can be done in seconds?
    – Shorn
    Jun 13, 2023 at 1:49
  • 3
    For a non-trivial question on StackOverflow, it can take me 10 minutes to write, test, and then craft an answer for an easy question. It has taken me up to 45 minutes for a more complex one (and I'm sure there are higher levels of complexity for tags I don't look at). Comparatively, I could throw it in an AI generator, have it give me an answer, and copy and paste it into the answer box in less than 5 minutes.
    – Shorn
    Jun 13, 2023 at 1:54
  • @mason It is difficult to drive for whom? What do you propose to manage it? yes, your idea is not even to let them exist so you are going in the wrong direction to what the company thinks... and we are not talking about quality or how good the answers are... it is simply the human part that has limitations . With this I do not mean that the human part is bad or the part where users intervene with the A.I., simply the people here are the ones who are not prepared to deal with an A.I.
    – user1322023
    Jun 13, 2023 at 1:55
  • @Shorn the AI answers that are thrown in without effort and can be done in seconds? You need to read my proposal, there is a way to solve the volume problem, currently my case with 5000 points could only see 20 questions in the queue, there was this limit and I was not allowed to interact more with the queue ... the problem is not the questions... are the tools (Users and the platform).
    – user1322023
    Jun 13, 2023 at 1:58
  • I could throw it in an AI generator, have it give me an answer, and copy and paste it into the answer box in less than 5 minutes. And before posting the answer, you would evaluate if it is correct, right? The problem is if you are not a responsible user, when anyone sees your bad 5 minute answer it will happen the same as it happens nowadays with the low quality queue...
    – user1322023
    Jun 13, 2023 at 2:00
  • 2
    "and we are not talking about quality or how good the answers are", why not? That's part of the reason for these sites in the first place. I've read your proposal, marking the answers as AI generated, creating a separate curation queue, and removing curation limits does not REDUCE the amount of curation work to be done, it shifts it just moves it. "The problem is if you are not a responsible user", and there is no way to guarantee that any new user IS a "responsible user". What ends up happening is the existing queues get bogged down with significant bloat that humans have to contend with.
    – Shorn
    Jun 13, 2023 at 2:03
  • 2
    @ArcanisGK507 Yes, I'm well aware my views are at odds with the company's. I'm also aware that my views are roughly inline with the rest of the meta community's, by a ratio of about 63 to 1 if the votes on this question are anything to go by. Just because the company thinks they have the proper stance doesn't mean it's the proper one of our community (or for themselves for that matter). Moderators were managing the flood of AI generated content quite well. They should continue to do so.
    – mason
    Jun 13, 2023 at 2:05
  • @Shorn well, no one can guarantee that users will stop using AI because the policy says so... they must be very bad users to fall for this... in the end it generates more work.
    – user1322023
    Jun 13, 2023 at 2:09
  • 3
    "when anyone sees your bad 5 minute answer it will happen the same as it happens nowadays", except it doesn't look like a 5 minute answer. How do you differentiate between an answer I blindly copied and pasted from an AI chatbot as compared to one I spent 30 minutes looking through and verifying? A human written 5 minute answer for non-trivial questions usually appear like 5 minute answers.
    – Shorn
    Jun 13, 2023 at 2:09
  • 6
    so because we can't stop people from using it we should just ignore the problem? Moderation and curation work against these answers remove the carrot from users who do so, with suspensions, bans, etc. By making it clear that they are not accepted, we at least dissuade those who know, and can try to handle the lowered amount of those who don't know/care. "In the end it generates more work" as compared to having to curate a flood of AI generated answers?
    – Shorn
    Jun 13, 2023 at 2:12
  • 3
    "anyone can formulate a better answer having the AI as a guide" unless the AI gives you false information that you then work off of. That being said, at least on StackOverflow using AI as a guide IS allowed. If you've verified the information and written an answer BASED ON (not copying) the information given that is allowed and accepted.
    – Shorn
    Jun 13, 2023 at 2:19
  • 3
    "moderation has serious problems if they are guided by what the answer looks like" again, we are all volunteers. There is no time to parse through and validate every single answer. We triage, and bad looking answers are evaluated first because they are likely to have issues. Better looking ones may have issues, and are handled when identified.
    – Shorn
    Jun 13, 2023 at 2:19
4

Premise:

  1. With the correct prompt, you can elicit a decent to good answer out of GPT.
  2. GPT is not psychic. It cannot see what's not there.
  3. Most questions lack context.

Let me repeat the latter claim: most questions are incomplete, non-repro, don't properly show what exactly the OP is trying to do and what their edge cases are, and so on.

Now one can take such question and plunk it, along with its title, into GPT and get a good answer out of it.

There starts the fractal of "yeah, but". "Here are seven ways in which you could solve that problem", it'll start, followed by six to eight potential solutions. And each of those will be somewhat viable, but nobody but the OP will be able to answer the question of whether they actually are. Answering a question properly requires some back-and-forth between the asker and the potential answerer.

ChatGPT doesn't ask these questions, it just plunks a fistful of possible solutions onto your screen. If you dig into one of those, sure, it might work. It might just as well be an outdated, insecure or incorrect approach. The asker won't know (or they wouldn't have to ask), nor does the answerer (or they wouldn't have to ask GPT nor post it as an potential fix).

So to address your

As ChatGPT continues to enhance the quality of its responses, and users become adept at formulating precise and comprehensive questions

If you don't know what to ask (because you don't know what the OP is looking for and you can't fill in the blanks because you lack experience), there is no question that will yield an acceptable response.

2
  • 1
    Hence my "How my mum uses Google" comment above. GIGO.
    – Tetsujin
    Jun 13, 2023 at 15:48
  • ChatGPT may fail (make stuff up) even when there is enough context and you ask it leading questions (because you already know the answer). I have had sessions where I had to ask 7-8 leading questions to get to the correct answer. The first thought when looking at any response from ChatGPT always ought to be: Is it making stuff up? Jun 13, 2023 at 20:58
3

While the solutions proposed by moderators adhere to a zero-tolerance approach towards AI, the reality is that large corporations are increasingly embracing the idea of AI implementation.

Communities on the network have made this choice and have spoken. What large corporations do is irrelevant. In time, wanton disruption will be regulated.

Yes, if a model is trained to rehash content it was trained on, and does not attribute or provide its sources, it plagiarizes outright. Ethics do matter. Furthermore, if it does so with CC content, I think it violates the licence which requires attribution. Contributions to the network are made under the CC BY-SA licence. I find it offensive that human beings would be required to attribute when sharing and remixing CC content, while an AI would not.

In my opinion, these AIs produce lots of inaccurate content, and they will (sometimes) admit to it when pressed. They can't stop themselves from BSing their way around until told, not unlike trolls on social networks, an obvious source of some of their training, while deceptively using great prose to cover their tracks. But as history shows, it could be too late to undo their mistakes, as disinformation spreads fast and volume talks. These models have been poorly and carelessly trained, to justify the sale of better trained models, at the expense of accuracy, decency and ethics. At the expense of human beings and communities. In the meantime the damage is ongoing.

2

I'm glad to have had a chat with you yesterday in Spanish. As I mentioned, it looks to me that you have thought about this a lot and feared that this post would be "drowned in downvotes" due to this community culture, norms and workings despite your intentions and the post content.

IMO, the major issues of this post are:

  1. As a , it's too broad.
  2. It requires more work to explain the value of this contribution under this community's current circumstances.
  3. "AI" and "ChatGPT" have been excessively overused.

I suggest you join the conversations on Tavern on the Meta, the Meta Stack Exchange main chatroom and/or Meta Discussions, a Discord server where SO/SE users gather together to have casual chats about ideas like you are sharing in this post. You might or might not support the current moderation strike; you might agree or not with the SO's December 2022 and other SE sites' generated-text ban; these spaces are open, in simple words, to anyone that respects other people and their content.

Related

1
  • There is no way to properly address something about this topic that the community supports... There are many critics and few proposals to solve the communication problems and give the moderation a proper direction that satisfies the company's vision and the needs of the community. It's just regressive...
    – user1322023
    Jun 16, 2023 at 19:11

You must log in to answer this question.