-35

I'm just going to put this out there, with no real idea how it'll be received but...

Question: Can users with sufficient reputation get free ChatGPT Plus accounts?

In particular:

Obviously I can't see all ends here, but it seems like this would be technically feasible to implement if all parties were willing, and it would be a way for OpenAI to give back tangibly to one of the communities it directly benefits from.

Improve this question
3
  • 1
    You say it would encourage participation. In what? SE? genAI? How?
    – Chenmunka
    Commented Jul 13 at 10:49
  • 4
    I mean, I guess you could ask the chatGPT instance your question instead of asking on the site, but why would you be on SE, accumilate rep then not use the site?
    – Journeyman Geek
    Commented Jul 13 at 10:54
  • @JourneymanGeek, If asked, perhaps ChatGPT would answer something like this: I would like to emphasize that the consensus on the need to reward users offers an interesting opportunity to verify the process of ranking users reputation on the platform as a whole where this question, duly pondered, raises doubts about whether the use of AI software is necessary or not, and thus stimulates a questioning about it.
    – Augusto Vasques
    Commented Jul 13 at 12:52

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
10

This would probably cost SE money, which I'd rather see going directly back into the community. Basically the "tangible" benefits I want to see from these partnership are development and staffing rather than access to a tool many users in the community consider a bit of a anathema.

Considering the company's trying to integrate LLMs into their paid product, put in a fairly significant chunk of resources , and... downsized staff - I don't want to see the outcome of the partnership literally being OpenAI selling access to our own work, masticated beyond recognition in return for... well our work.

I also don't see any particular benefit in terms of why I'm on SE. Which tends to be answering interesting problems, and occasionally asking questions about properly befuddling issues which an LLM probably wouldn't be able to parse.

Considering the general attitude towards genAI on the network, tainted by events here, I'd think the reception to it actually happening would be chaos, unhappiness, and calls for people's heads.

The 'benefits' are not that great, and the potential for core users being deeply unhappy over this is why, as I'd said earlier - I'd rather the resources go towards development of the public platform and ancillaries, and ensuring comfortable staffing levels with minimal risk of layoffs, than spent on getting folks chatgpt plus access.

Improve this answer
9
  • 3
    "I don't want to see the outcome of the partnership literally being OpenAI selling access to our own work".... 😬😬😬🤐🤐
    – AMtwo
    Commented Jul 13 at 21:36
  • 1
    After everything, I think I can afford to call it as I see it :D. I'm still skeptical of the long term viability of SE's partners in AI, and of the AI hype cycle as a whole, and of the ethics of many of these AI companies. I'd rather as much of this money go into our future and present rather than theirs.
    – Journeyman Geek
    Commented Jul 13 at 23:14
  • I suppose this should have been the anticipated response. I still wonder, though, if we should be asking OpenAI in particular (since we have a partnership) to "give back to the communities" more than what's required by copyright law (i.e., the absolute minimum).
    – Rebecca J. Stones
    Commented Jul 14 at 2:11
  • 1
    In this case, openAI currently swimming in VC money so - pending whether things get better or worse, the 'giving back to the communities' should be in investments in the community, and backfilling places where they cut back previously, and may be under resourced. A million dollars would likely pay for a community manager for a decade. And to me that's worth more than openAI plus subs for everyone.
    – Journeyman Geek
    Commented Jul 14 at 2:48
  • 2
    Also To borrow a modern day tamil proverb, its like ice cream and aviyal Both can be lovely on their own, but I'd really not have both of them mixed together. Various company actions have probably soured the 'core' community, and meta denizens on AI/GenAI
    – Journeyman Geek
    Commented Jul 14 at 2:53
  • Sort of an aside, but "Considering the company's trying to integrate LLMs into their paid product, put in a fairly significant chunk of resources" -- we're >1.5 years into the GPT revolution and still no really useful feature or product has come of it on SO, in spite of all the effort.
    – ggorlen
    Commented Jul 14 at 23:18
  • There's a 10 dollar add on to teams for that. I hope it costs less than 10 dollars a user to run :D
    – Journeyman Geek
    Commented Jul 14 at 23:49
  • @JourneymanGeek I'm pretty sure that the OpenAI "partnership" is 90% "OpenAI gives money to Stack Overflow in exchange for Stack's data."
    – AMtwo
    Commented Jul 15 at 12:15
  • And, wierdly, all things considered if the money goes back into the community and fixing things badly broken by previous fixations and mistakes, I can.. live with that. I'm more concerned about SO inc actually building sustainable rather than the current cycles of boom and bust. I've yet to see my canaries for 'doing' better sing though.
    – Journeyman Geek
    Commented Jul 15 at 12:30

You must log in to answer this question.

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