Stack Overflow users sabotage their posts after OpenAI deal
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/05/stack-overflow-users-sabotage-their-posts-after-openai-deal/
The end of stack overflow?
Personally I know companies are using my open sourced stuff..
Let it be...
I like Stackoverflow, it gave me many good answers in the past
to difficult questions...
Many highly qualified people there.
One often has to trawl through a number of suggested solutions, either because
most of them are wrong (or at least wildly apocryphal), irrelevant, or because
the same or similar symptoms can have many different underlying causes.
I have to wonder whether a language model is really up to the task of filtering
out the dross, while keeping the important parts.
On 10-May-24 2:55 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Stack Overflow users sabotage their posts after OpenAI deal
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/05/stack-overflow-users-sabotage-their-posts-after-openai-deal/
The end of stack overflow?
Personally I know companies are using my open sourced stuff..
Let it be...
I like Stackoverflow, it gave me many good answers in the past
to difficult questions...
Many highly qualified people there.
One often has to trawl through a number of suggested solutions, either >because most of them are wrong (or at least wildly apocryphal),
irrelevant, or because the same or similar symptoms can have many
different underlying causes.
I have to wonder whether a language model is really up to the task of >filtering out the dross, while keeping the important parts.
Sylvia Else wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Stack Overflow users sabotage their posts after OpenAI deal
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/05/stack-overflow-users-sabotage-their-posts-after-openai-deal/
The end of stack overflow?
Personally I know companies are using my open sourced stuff..
Let it be...
I like Stackoverflow, it gave me many good answers in the past
to difficult questions...
Many highly qualified people there.
One often has to trawl through a number of suggested solutions, either >>because most of them are wrong (or at least wildly apocryphal),
irrelevant, or because the same or similar symptoms can have many
different underlying causes.
I have to wonder whether a language model is really up to the task of >>filtering out the dross, while keeping the important parts.
There is always the issue that one at least needs to know some stuff to use the answers...
Same may go for an AI created answer.
I have been deliberately trying to get AI to get the concepts wrong
told it for example I died and went to heaven but was not let in there because I did not have the required 4 COVID shots.
Makes me wonder if it replies to questions by somebody about going to heaven 'Make sure you have the 4 COVID shots".
But that takes me on a religious side-track.. is not that the way many
kids are brain washed (wrong-educated)
growing up in religious environments, with other requirement for heaven
than COVID shots? (Oh well maybe that too)...
creating all the various religious fanatic groups we see now being played
out against each other by the US military industrial complex
for weapon sales...
On 10-May-24 2:55 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Stack Overflow users sabotage their posts after OpenAI deal
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/05/stack-overflow-users-sabotage-their-posts-after-openai-deal/
The end of stack overflow?
Personally I know companies are using my open sourced stuff..
Let it be...
I like Stackoverflow, it gave me many good answers in the past
to difficult questions...
Many highly qualified people there.
One often has to trawl through a number of suggested solutions, either because most of them are wrong (or at least wildly apocryphal),
irrelevant, or because the same or similar symptoms can have many
different underlying causes.
I have to wonder whether a language model is really up to the task of filtering out the dross, while keeping the important parts.
It's feasible for the fine print of social sites similar to
Stackoverflow to stipulate all rights to user content belong to the
website owner. The quid pro quo is the owner's out-of-pocket expenses to
host the site.
Everything comes at a price. And this perfectly illustrates why people absolutely must host their own websites in order to protect their
rights.
Don wrote:
It's feasible for the fine print of social sites similar to
Stackoverflow to stipulate all rights to user content belong to the
website owner. The quid pro quo is the owner's out-of-pocket expenses to
host the site.
Everything comes at a price. And this perfectly illustrates why people
absolutely must host their own websites in order to protect their
rights.
Litigation is what will protect your rights; merely hosting a site
(that can be archived and reused at a later date by any number of
visitors) only controls what that site will PUBLISH at some instant
in time.
Can you prevent a 'bot from scraping your site and using that
content to "educate a visitor"? *Train* an AI??
Don Y wrote:
Don wrote:
It's feasible for the fine print of social sites similar to
Stackoverflow to stipulate all rights to user content belong to the
website owner. The quid pro quo is the owner's out-of-pocket expenses to >>> host the site.
Everything comes at a price. And this perfectly illustrates why people
absolutely must host their own websites in order to protect their
rights.
Litigation is what will protect your rights; merely hosting a site
(that can be archived and reused at a later date by any number of
visitors) only controls what that site will PUBLISH at some instant
in time.
Can you prevent a 'bot from scraping your site and using that
content to "educate a visitor"? *Train* an AI??
Both 'bots and litigation are separate topics.
My comments pertain to rights retention. After you sign away your
rights, nothing's left to litigate.
If it helps, think of it this way: a website's owner is legally entitled
to rip you off when you sign away your rights.
Don wrote:
Don Y wrote:
Don wrote:
It's feasible for the fine print of social sites similar to
Stackoverflow to stipulate all rights to user content belong to the
website owner. The quid pro quo is the owner's out-of-pocket expenses to >>>> host the site.
Everything comes at a price. And this perfectly illustrates why people >>>> absolutely must host their own websites in order to protect their
rights.
Litigation is what will protect your rights; merely hosting a site
(that can be archived and reused at a later date by any number of
visitors) only controls what that site will PUBLISH at some instant
in time.
Can you prevent a 'bot from scraping your site and using that
content to "educate a visitor"? *Train* an AI??
Both 'bots and litigation are separate topics.
Bots are the exact corollary to AI; what's the difference between
me, as a human, scraping your site (even if I don't do it mechanically)
and LEARNING from everything contained therein... vs. a bot scraping it
for an AI?
My comments pertain to rights retention. After you sign away your
rights, nothing's left to litigate.
When *your* site is scraped, where are your rights? Can you
prove that my AI derived some/all of its knowledge from the "copyright-protected content" on your site?
If it helps, think of it this way: a website's owner is legally entitled
to rip you off when you sign away your rights.
So, as the site's owner, what protections do *you* have
regarding *your* content (regardless of its source)?
Once you publish, you're exposed. I make a point of inserting
small bugs into any code that I publish as exemplars. My thinking
is that anyone who is interested in the points being illustrated will
TRY to run the code, encounter an error AND THEN LOOK *INTO* THE CODE
in an attempt to UNDERSTAND it. That last point being the exact
point of providing exemplars! :>
(Anyone -- or anyTHING -- intent on just COPYING it will replicate the bug)
Don Y wrote:
Don wrote:
Don Y wrote:
Don wrote:
It's feasible for the fine print of social sites similar to
Stackoverflow to stipulate all rights to user content belong to the
website owner. The quid pro quo is the owner's out-of-pocket expenses to >>>>> host the site.
Everything comes at a price. And this perfectly illustrates why people >>>>> absolutely must host their own websites in order to protect their
rights.
Litigation is what will protect your rights; merely hosting a site
(that can be archived and reused at a later date by any number of
visitors) only controls what that site will PUBLISH at some instant
in time.
Can you prevent a 'bot from scraping your site and using that
content to "educate a visitor"? *Train* an AI??
Both 'bots and litigation are separate topics.
Bots are the exact corollary to AI; what's the difference between
me, as a human, scraping your site (even if I don't do it mechanically)
and LEARNING from everything contained therein... vs. a bot scraping it
for an AI?
My comments pertain to rights retention. After you sign away your
rights, nothing's left to litigate.
When *your* site is scraped, where are your rights? Can you
prove that my AI derived some/all of its knowledge from the
"copyright-protected content" on your site?
If it helps, think of it this way: a website's owner is legally entitled >>> to rip you off when you sign away your rights.
So, as the site's owner, what protections do *you* have
regarding *your* content (regardless of its source)?
Once you publish, you're exposed. I make a point of inserting
small bugs into any code that I publish as exemplars. My thinking
is that anyone who is interested in the points being illustrated will
TRY to run the code, encounter an error AND THEN LOOK *INTO* THE CODE
in an attempt to UNDERSTAND it. That last point being the exact
point of providing exemplars! :>
(Anyone -- or anyTHING -- intent on just COPYING it will replicate the bug)
"What we've got here is failure to communicate."
Your questions and arguments again fall outside of the scope of my
followup. My comments pertain to rights retention.
On 10-May-24 2:55 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Stack Overflow users sabotage their posts after OpenAI deal
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/05/stack-overflow-users-sabotage-their-posts-after-openai-deal/
The end of stack overflow?
Personally I know companies are using my open sourced stuff..
Let it be...
I like Stackoverflow, it gave me many good answers in the past
to difficult questions...
Many highly qualified people there.
One often has to trawl through a number of suggested solutions, either
because most of them are wrong (or at least wildly apocryphal),The idea that they should be voted down.
irrelevant, or because the same or similar symptoms can have many
different underlying causes.
I have to wonder whether a language model is really up to the task of >filtering out the dross, while keeping the important parts.I think yes, in the long run.
Sylvia.--
Don Y wrote:
...
If it helps, think of it this way: a website's owner is legally entitled
to rip you off when you sign away your rights.
The most annoying is that 4 of 5 question that I want to
ask there are destroyed by the moderators.
It is largely arbitrary.
Explain the difference between c and lisp macro's?
IMHO dubious. Huge upvotes, apparently acceptable.
Explain the difference between Forth and lisp macro's?
A more sensible question because they are more related.
Shot down, inappropiate for SO.
My sensible m4 question (how to write a function that
removes the first character of a string) was voted down.
On 5/11/2024 4:45 AM, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:
The most annoying is that 4 of 5 question that I want to
ask there are destroyed by the moderators.
For all the folks who think "moderation" is the solution... :>
It is largely arbitrary.
Explain the difference between c and lisp macro's?
IMHO dubious. Huge upvotes, apparently acceptable.
Explain the difference between Forth and lisp macro's?
A more sensible question because they are more related.
Shot down, inappropiate for SO.
My sensible m4 question (how to write a function that
removes the first character of a string) was voted down.
In Inferno/Limbo, you would use "len" to determine the number
of characters in the argument (to guard against degenerate
cases -- with appropriate conditional logic) and then "substr"
to peel off the characters following the "0-th" character.
I have found that any of my contributions to a question are either
removed or edited. I thought it was just me but it looks like it
isn't just me.
This may be for stack-exchange or in addition to.
Are they owned by the same people ?
The article called them "sisters"
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 418 |
Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
Uptime: | 02:44:32 |
Calls: | 8,786 |
Calls today: | 13 |
Files: | 13,296 |
Messages: | 5,965,496 |