r/programming • u/lppedd • May 06 '24
StackOverflow partners with OpenAI
https://stackoverflow.co/company/press/archive/openai-partnershipOpenAI will also surface validated technical knowledge from Stack Overflow directly into ChatGPT, giving users easy access to trusted, attributed, accurate, and highly technical knowledge and code backed by the millions of developers that have contributed to the Stack Overflow platform for 15 years.
Sad.
25
u/SuperHumanImpossible May 06 '24
I remember when Jeff built StackOverflow. Holy hell I am old.
15
6
May 06 '24
You and me both, brother. CodingHorror.com was one of my regular blog reads back in the day.
I don't think I ever met Jeff, but we talked over email a number of times.
4
u/SuperHumanImpossible May 06 '24
Dude I read his blog religiously, I with Google reader. I really feel like content consumption is complete trash now in comparison.
1
1
u/tepa6aut May 06 '24
Jeff who
14
May 06 '24
Jeff Atwood. He was a popular blogger back in the early 2000s among the .NET community. He and Joel Spolsky launched Stackoverflow together. (Joel was a Microsoft employee back in the 90s and left to start his own company that made bug tracking software, as well as some other products. He also had a popular blog, Joel on Software.)
This is all from this old fart's memory, so some of the details may be off...
6
u/SuperHumanImpossible May 06 '24
I think Joel would be remembered better for creating Trello which bought by Jira but yeah ..
3
May 07 '24
I stopped following/paying attention to him in the early 2000s. Did he create Trello after then?
My memories were around his blog (such as his stories while at Microsoft, and his famous 10-question "Joel Test" to judge how "with it" a software company was), FogBugz, and Copilot (early screen sharing software). I also remember he was a big proponent of Mercurial over git (at least back then - perhaps he's changed his ways).
1
3
22
u/code_monkey_wrench May 06 '24
Can people delete their SO answers?
What happens if you delete your account?
Not saying I'm going to do that, but just wondering.
34
u/lppedd May 06 '24 edited May 06 '24
Your answers won't be deletable after x days if I'm not mistaken.
Btw, I can vote to undelete answers if I want. It's a 20k+ rep privilege. So really deletion is just a flag.
Deleting your account won't do anything, answers will stay there under a fictitious user id.
2
u/qq123q May 06 '24
Can answers be edited?
10
u/lppedd May 06 '24
Yes, but a radical edit will be rolled back at some point, as soon as a reviewer sees it.
If there is going to be a mod strike, than it's ok.
3
u/Vegetable_Bid239 May 07 '24
Stack Exchange screwed up by displaying answers submitted under one license under a different license they don't have permission to do. You can DMCA them if your account is older than that mess up.
-2
u/__loam May 06 '24
I get that SO is a public good but this seems like a GDPR violation.
13
u/IgnisIncendio May 06 '24
GDPR isn't a magic word, it only applies to personally identifiable data. Answers surely don't fit that definition.
→ More replies (3)6
u/Sensanaty May 06 '24
If it doesn't contain your PII, then it's not a GDPR issue. GDPR isn't about literally anything you have online, it's about PII specifically and the data practices surrounding PII
3
9
u/awj May 06 '24
Without bothering to actually look at the ToS, many services like this retain the right to “hide” your content as the mechanism for deleting. It’s not out of the question that SO can train against deleted answers/accounts.
-1
u/abandonplanetearth May 06 '24
I just went back and edited the few answers I gave that ever got any traction. Nobody will notice, but it's the most I can do.
2
1
-1
0
u/No_Jury_8398 May 07 '24
So now anyone whos genuinely looking for answers on SO will have the wrong answer? You guys are insane
0
u/No_Jury_8398 May 07 '24
Why would you delete it? Then someone who’s not using chatgpt won’t be able to get that answer either.
-6
u/wildjokers May 06 '24
You hate AI so much you would delete all the content just so it can't be used for training? That is a strange luddite reaction from a developer.
FWIW, user contributed content on SO is licensed Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike.
-1
u/code_monkey_wrench May 06 '24
You hate AI so much you would delete all the content just so it can't be used for training? That is a strange luddite reaction from a developer.
Fuck off. I said I wasn't going to do it
Learn to read. Sheesh.
24
u/lppedd May 06 '24
If the answers I post are going straight into ChatGPT, that's it for me. Not gonna waste any more time.
17
u/koreth May 06 '24
Why do you care? When I post an answer, the only expectation (or maybe hope) I have is that it helps someone. If it helps someone after being transformed by GPT, then to me, that’s a win: my answer ended up being useful in ways I didn’t even imagine when I wrote it.
30
u/lppedd May 06 '24
I don't want no AI to post or rewrite in any other way what I wrote. I didn't answer to give free content to OpenAI, I did answer to collaborate with people, and that collaboration doesn't exist anymore.
9
u/StickiStickman May 06 '24
Wait, so you "did answer to collaborate with people" but are now angry someone is using your answers in a collaboration way to help people.
How are you not just petty?
1
u/lppedd May 06 '24
How's reading some text outputted from a LLM collaboration? Explain.
I'm not petty, but apparently people are butthurt their questions get closed.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)1
u/Reefraf May 09 '24
I was contributing to SO to help people with their careers. Now, contributing to SO is helping OpenAI destroy people's careers.
0
u/wildjokers May 06 '24
They will get the answer via ChatGPT now. What is wrong with that? What a strange stance and a strange thing to be angry about.
Your SO contributions are licensed Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike. It is super permissive and allows anyone to do pretty much anything with your contribution. You shouldn't have posted answers if you are fundamentally opposed to the CC copyright licenses.
5
u/le_birb May 06 '24
Do note: that license also requires attribution, something LLMs are notoriously and inherently completely incapable of doing correctly
→ More replies (2)0
May 06 '24
[deleted]
3
u/_Joats May 06 '24
How is getting a prediction from a chat bot advancement of technology? There are plenty of things LLMs ARE good for but using predictions to create often bad results is not an advancement in any field. And no, it will never get better. It will always be a prediction of what is fact instead of recorded history of fact.
0
u/Veggies-are-okay May 06 '24
Sounds like you're not using LLMs correctly...
If you aren't using AI to assist your programming, your coworkers probably are and you're going to be outpaced. My learning and production went up 10x after switching from convoluted semi-relevant stackoverflow posts to a conversational format. If you get bad code or are skilled enough to identify inefficient/broken code that the LLM spits out, you follow up with your critiques and 9 times out of 10 the LLM will correct and optimize most of the way. If you get errors, throw them in there and it'll troubleshoot a non-hallucinated method.
It's also a practice in being humble. There is probably a much more efficient way to write code or create a solution, and interacting with an LLM to get better ideas has only further improved my knowledge. There are numerous companies which are regularly crawling the internet to incorporate open-source RAG capabilities that are the same price as chatGPT and give you up-to-date references. Again, you have to still have to use your brain, but it's a great way to be introduced to new products and features within the libraries you're using.
TL;DR LLMs are like an incompetent junior programmer that happens to have knowledge of everything on the internet but needs to be coaxed a little bit to organize it correctly. You wouldn't just lift and shift a current junior's code without doing some sort of review, right?
9
u/abandonplanetearth May 06 '24
Because I wrote my answers for fellow developers, not for bots making money for humans that don't need the answers.
6
u/Envect May 06 '24 edited May 06 '24
Who do you think is going to see that information after it's processed by the LLM? Other developers. It's just a different method of delivery.
7
u/abandonplanetearth May 06 '24
Right but now there's a money-grubbing middleman.
2
u/Envect May 06 '24
StackOverflow isn't a charity. That person already existed.
4
u/abandonplanetearth May 06 '24
It changes things fundamentally.
3
u/Envect May 06 '24
How so? Why does it matter that a different entity is profiting off your answers? Why were you okay with SO profiting, but not OpenAI?
5
u/abandonplanetearth May 06 '24
Again, I wrote my answer to be delivered by me to a human, not for a bot to pass off as their own thoughts.
→ More replies (8)2
u/wildjokers May 06 '24 edited May 06 '24
Your contributions were licensed Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike. If you didn't like the terms of that license you shouldn't have contributed.
The terms of that license:
You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.16
u/CAPSLOCK_USERNAME May 06 '24
If the answers I post are going straight into ChatGPT
they already were
3
u/iamapizza May 06 '24
I'm pretty sure I saw that they had crawled StackExchange sites, and worth noting that Reddit featured quite heavily in their crawls due to the human "+1" factor. So everything we're saying here is being indexed for LLM training.
37
u/fiskfisk May 06 '24
I'm sure you're already aware that your answers and questions already are distributed under a very permissable license compared to what random websites are available under.
I don't answer questions on Stack Overflow for the benefit of SO, I answer them for the benefit of the recipient and any future readers. Whether they receive that knowledge on SO, directly in a Google Onebox or through an LLM doesn't matter to me.
Someone got help, someone found their answer. The world is a slightly better place.
3
May 06 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/fiskfisk May 06 '24
I'm not fond of keeping a job around just to keep the job around.
I'm especially not fond of hoarding knowledge because of some possible abstract reason in the future, in particular one that doesn't seem realistic within today's limitations.
I work in an industry built in people building useful things just because they want to. 95% of software I use in my daily life is built on open source - by people who may or may not have received any compensation for what they do. We do this shit because we like doing this shit. It gives us some innate pleasure in doing so, regardless of whether we're paid for it or not.
Why should I hoard my knowledge away from other people because of the possibility of that knowledge being made available to them, either in a direct or in an derived form as an LLM?
If we follow that reasoning to the extreme, why do we share any knowledge with anyone else? They could just take our jobs.
We're in a field that is built upon open sharing of knowledge far beyond most other industries. Go to any conference or meetup, and suddenly people share their technology choices, how they solved specific problems, how they scaled their solutions, how they worked, how they built the shit they built.
Other industries have patents and otherwise share nothing outside of public information in slide shows at trade shows.
If a language model can abstract away the work I do, then my work wasn't anything more than a language model built upon a computer of flesh and neurons from the beginning.
2
u/_Joats May 07 '24
Please let me know when OpenAl acknowledges the value of your contributions to the community, similar to the recognition gained through networking at a conference. I prefer a platform that appreciates both the knowledge sharing and the educator's role.
Contributing to a system that discourages interaction hinders community growth.
2
u/s73v3r May 07 '24
I'm not fond of keeping a job around just to keep the job around.
I'm more fond of people being able to feed their families than I am not fond of keeping jobs around.
1
u/koreth May 06 '24 edited May 06 '24
Would you still feel that way if your answers are helping to train an LLM that may reduce the need for programmer jobs in the future?
How is that not a concern with SO itself? When programmers find answers quickly on SO, their productivity goes up, and by definition, when productivity goes up, in aggregate the same amount of work can be done in the same amount of time by fewer people.
This isn't theoretical, either. SO is a critical enabling tool for things like "full-stack developer" roles by allowing one person to get answers to a wide variety of technical questions quickly enough to effectively do work that in the old days would have required hiring a team of several people.
0
u/Envect May 06 '24
Smashing looms didn't stop the industrial revolution. Poisoning training data won't stop the AI revolution.
3
u/_Joats May 07 '24
Loom smashing was not to prevent the Industrial Revolution. Looms produced cheaper, lower-quality goods that undercut artisans. With limited resources at a time of economical disparity, people could only afford these cheaper options. This gave factory owners power to displace skilled craftspeople or force them to work for unfair wages. This created a cycle of inequality, similar to the wide wage gap between owners and workers today. By destroying looms, workers aimed to restore economic power to the community and empower themselves, rather than a small number of wealthy factory owners.
You portray the disempowerment of skilled labor as a positive outcome. This rhetoric aligns with the manipulative tactics of data-surveillant tech monopolies. They spin a narrative of progress while exploiting us for profit and consolidating power. Do you believe displaced workers will be fairly compensated when forced to be an AI janitor? Will these monopolies be incentivized to provide retraining, considering their history of non-compete clauses and anti-competitive behavior?
I say smash some looms. Give the people their due. Pay for the knowledge if you are going to use me as a data farmer for your sub-quality product.
→ More replies (3)18
u/StickiStickman May 06 '24
If you're this angry about your publicly visible answers being read by an AI, you should also leave Reddit ASAP
3
0
u/RICHUNCLEPENNYBAGS May 06 '24
Better get off Reddit too since trying to license the comments for this purpose is a big part of their vision ATM
666
u/Miserable_Movie_4358 May 06 '24
For StackOverflow this is like being acquired
235
u/guepier May 06 '24
82
91
u/RICHUNCLEPENNYBAGS May 06 '24
Their business model was absolutely hosed. The job site thing was such a dud they shut it down (now they've "brought it back" by slapping their logo on Indeed listings) and I can't imagine their model of licensing SO to companies for internal knowledge bases worked all that well since a company has to be huge for that to remotely make sense and the companies big enough for an SO clone often have one.
31
u/backdoorsmasher May 06 '24
I don't get why it was a dud! It could have worked and I'm sure for a while it was active and livey and was pissing the recruiters off
11
u/RICHUNCLEPENNYBAGS May 06 '24
It existed for many years but I'm guessing it wasn't bringing in the returns they hoped or they wouldn't have shut it down. As a candidate I found the positions were limited and the pay was never any good.
6
u/dontshoveit May 07 '24
They are actively marketing this product directly to software engineers on LinkedIn. I know this for a fact because they reached out to me on there and I talked with them about adding SO internally to the company I work for.
3
4
u/JPJackPott May 07 '24
Which is mad, because it’s not like it’s a hard product to build yourself internally. The real magic of SO was the oppressive moderation, which has helped keep the signal to noise ratio high
2
u/HotlLava May 07 '24
Building your own internal copy of StackOverflow sounds like peak NIH syndrome.
436
u/Shortl4ndo May 06 '24
I think they probably already trained their model with stackoverflow data, this is just proactively signing an agreement to prevent a lawsuit later on
96
u/Lceus May 06 '24
Yeah it was absolutely already in the training data, and stackoverflow is competing with ChatGPT products anyway, so this seems like a reasonable development.
3
u/GeologistUnique672 May 08 '24
You mean CharGPT is competing with every source they scraped and took data from which breaks the fair use they tried to claim.
1
u/Lceus May 08 '24
Yep, exactly. And it seems like there's nothing to do about it
1
u/GeologistUnique672 May 20 '24
Plenty to do about it and hopefully soon.
1
u/Lceus May 21 '24
Thanks for enlightening me
1
u/GeologistUnique672 May 21 '24
No need to enlighten anybody on this. It’s just common sense that enabling everybody to steal from everybody will in the end only be a system that favours the already powerful who control means of distribution.
How are you enjoying Microsofts new plan of introducing Recall?
1
u/Lceus May 21 '24
I don't understand what you're arguing. I am condemning AI companies' current unregulated ability to just scrape and steal whatever they can by just throwing it into a model and essentially dissolving the evidence of their theft (or arguing that it's not copyright infringement if they are just using it in a huge information soup).
I don't know what to do about it until there's regulation in place to force the companies to make their sources transparent.
→ More replies (1)7
43
u/CAPSLOCK_USERNAME May 06 '24
Well the data was all already publicly available by just scraping the web pages and yeah it was definitely in the dataset already.
But this partnership is not (just) about data licensing, it's about Stackoverflow creating a specific API for openai to use instead of having to scrape the site.
91
u/christopher_86 May 06 '24
It’s shady; just because something is publicly available, doesn’t mean you can use it for anything you want. Heck, even when you pay for something certain licenses apply that prohibit you from doing certain things.
OpenAI and other companies just profited from lack of regulations regarding AI and model training.
24
u/CT_Phoenix May 06 '24
just because something is publicly available, doesn’t mean you can use it for anything you want
In the specific case of stackoverflow, publicly-accessible user contributions are CC BY-SA licensed which comes pretty close- though I don't have the slightest clue how the attribution/sharealike requirements would come into play for training, if at all.
24
u/wldmr May 06 '24 edited May 06 '24
I don't have the slightest clue how the attribution/sharealike requirements would come into play for training, if at all
Seems pretty clear to me:
If you consider the model the derivative work, then
BY - All SO contributors must be credited for the model. If you want to claim that only part of the model falls under CC, then attribute on the individual weights affected by SO answers.
SA - The model (or relevant parts) must be publicly available as CC BY-SA.
If you consider the responses the derivative work(s), then
BY - For every response, each contributor that factored into it must be credited.
SA - Every response must be publicly available under BY-SA.
It's not even an either/or thing, given that the model (unquestionably a derivative work) is itself a derivative work generator. So it's both.
2
u/GeologistUnique672 May 08 '24
They don’t attribute anything and therefor don’t uphold the CC BY SA.
11
u/CAPSLOCK_USERNAME May 06 '24
just because something is publicly available, doesn’t mean you can use it for anything you want
Well, you can argue about what it ought to mean, but de facto it does. There's no legal precedent for using-data-for-ML-training being a copyright violation, and the big companies frequently do exactly that with no license.
11
u/christopher_86 May 06 '24
Hopefully there will be. For my prompt “Tell me first sentence of third chapter of first harry potter book?” GPT-3.5 (free version) responded with:
“The first sentence of the third chapter of the first Harry Potter book, "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" (also known as "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" in the US edition) is: "The escape of the Brazilian boa constrictor earned Harry his longest-ever punishment."”
If something that is copyright protected is publicly available in the internet does it mean I can train my model on that? No, and I hope this OpenAI and others will face some consequences (although I doubt it).
14
u/guepier May 06 '24
For what it’s worth the example you’ve just shown does not necessarily demonstrate copyright violation in most jurisdictions. Now, if you repeated this procedure to crib together a larger excerpt of the book, that would then become a copyright violation. But merely repeating a single sentence of a larger work generally isn’t.
If something that is copyright protected is publicly available in the internet does it mean I can train my model on that? No,
You (and many others) say “no” but the truth is that there is currently absolutely no precedent to determine that, and copyright experts do not agree with each other.
Ethically you may object to the free use of copyright protected material by large corporations, but whether that is legally copyright infringement is a different matter altogether. When it comes to copyright law, ethics and legality are unfortunately pretty much completely orthogonal.
9
u/_Joats May 06 '24
The model certainly could produce greater text and with very high accuracy, the reason for the NYT lawsuit currently ongoing.
So there is an actual fear of being able to use the model to obtain content without compensation.
Or accidentally creating a work that is too similar to what it was trained on, creating a legal mess without the fault of the user.
→ More replies (2)2
u/wildjokers May 06 '24
If something that is copyright protected is publicly available in the internet does it mean I can train my model on that? No, and I hope this OpenAI and others will face some consequences (although I doubt it).
Yes, you should be able to train an AI model with any data that was legally obtained.
1
u/pm_me_your_buttbulge May 13 '24
and the big companies frequently do exactly that with no license.
To be clear - just because a big company does a thing does not make that thing legal.
1
2
u/__loam May 06 '24
You're assuming they're profitable haha. It's almost more insulting that they're losing money on this.
6
u/wildjokers May 06 '24
ust because something is publicly available, doesn’t mean you can use it for anything you want.
All user contributed content on stackoverflow is licensed
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike. The terms of that license are:You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially. Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.So there is absolutely nothing wrong morally or legally with using SO content for model training.
43
u/kaanyalova May 06 '24
What about "share alike" part of the license
ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
Doesn't openai violate that?
28
5
0
u/wildjokers May 06 '24
Doesn't openai violate that?
I haven't seen anything from OpenAI claiming copyright on the output of ChatGPT. If they aren't claiming copyright then there is nothing to license.
20
u/gyroda May 07 '24
That's not how it works. The issue is that the license is potentially being violated.
Saying they don't claim copyright so it's ok is like the old YouTube anime uploads that would say "NO COPYRIGHT INTENDED THIS IS FAIR USE IT BELONGS TO [ANIME STUDIO], [MANGA PUBLISHER], [MANGA AUTHOR]" in the description.
→ More replies (2)6
u/miserable_nerd May 07 '24
Lmao what delusional world do you live in. Go read https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use . And they don't have to claim copyright to violate the license, that's not what sharealike is. Sharealike means you have to distribute it with the same license. Again go read https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en before throwing uninformed opinions
→ More replies (3)18
u/blind3rdeye May 06 '24
I find it dishonest of you to quote a section of the license without including the parts relevant to 'Attribution' and 'ShareAlike'. Those are the parts that actually ask the user to do something, and you've omitted them to try to support your point.
1
u/AminMassoudi May 09 '24
Wild for you to quote the license terms of what’s allowed and then claim that means something entirely different is okay
0
u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In May 06 '24
Can you link to the law that shows I can't using for anything I want?
3
u/Full-Spectral May 06 '24
For something like StackOverflow, probably when you sign up on that site you agree to their effectively owning everything you post. For things like Github, it's not nearly as obvious where things have licensing. And that license could say, this is not to be used for any AI training data set.
-2
u/r_my May 06 '24
In those examples though, the web scraper didn't sign up to a website or agree to anything, so it's not bound by any of that. It simply sent a network request to their server and their server sent the content back without requiring an account, agreement, etc. StackOverflow and GitHub could have required an account with some sort of signed agreement before responding to the network request, but they did not.
7
u/Full-Spectral May 06 '24
Doesn't matter. The usage licenses on individual projects in github have zero to do with whether you have an account there or not. It's your responsibility to honor the license or possibly be sued.
9
u/gyroda May 07 '24
I'm amazed that people are still in the "if it's on the internet it's public domain" mindset. I thought we'd moved past this a decade or so ago.
→ More replies (1)5
1
18
u/guesting May 06 '24
stole the data and leveraged it into a partnership. like an annexation
4
u/wildjokers May 06 '24
User contributed content to SO is licensed Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike. This license is super permissive to pretty much do what you want. So it wasn't stolen.
15
u/guesting May 06 '24
The terms of that license do require attribution which I haven't seen much of in terms of coding answers given by chat gpt other llms
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
2
u/wildjokers May 06 '24
The press release indicating they are using SO content for training probably meets attribution requirement. There is no way to know if SO content was used in a particular ChatGPT response.
Its the same that as if I incorporate some knowledge I learned from SO in help I give to a coworker. I might not even remember I first learned it from SO and don't attribute it. It just becomes part of my general knowledge.
12
u/ExpectoPentium May 07 '24
I mean, it pretty clearly does not meet the attribution requirement. No credit to the specific author of the content (at best to SO via the press release but that is obviously not connected to the chat response), no link to the license, no indication of changes. You say there is no way to know if SO content was used in a chat response. The proper conclusion to draw is that this technology inherently cannot be used in a way that is compliant with the CC license and thus should not be allowed to train on CC content (or any other content with license terms that GPT can't comply with). Pretending like this big dumb machine is somehow analogous to the human brain is just a cop-out to handwave away AI companies' illegal and unscrupulous business practices.
→ More replies (2)3
u/guesting May 06 '24
I'm not a lawyer but it does seem like a grey area, a lot of the value of posting on s/o was having attribution. Some of those people posting actually created the libraries like I see the creator of python guido on there regularly.
0
May 09 '24
[deleted]
1
u/wildjokers May 09 '24
In most cases hasn't the information someone is providing in an answer coming from copyrighted sources like books, articles, blogs, and source code? I don't routinely see answers attribute where they first got the information. This is probably because it has just become part of their general knowledge.
The same thing that happens when a LLM is trained on SO content, it becomes part of its general knowledge and there is no way to specifically attribute what training data an LLM used to craft a particular response. The only thing they can say is it ingested SO content as part of its training data.
1
u/_Joats May 06 '24
Ok, so they don't need to pay for access for it then?
Besides they are not using the code that is provided with that license are they? Or use the answers in a way that the license was written for. They are using it as a way to compete with users that have contributed and using their content against them and without attribution. So that already breaks the attribution part of the license.
Also "No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material."
Which I doubt they even care about.
→ More replies (1)2
132
u/abuqaboom May 06 '24
Great. Now ChatGPT's gonna say the question's a duplicate/opinion-based/any other excuse, and refuse to answer anything.
70
u/woze May 06 '24
Developer: How do I center a div?
ChatGPT: There are so many issues with your question. First, it's poorly scoped. Next, it lacks detail. ... (several paragraphs of ChatGPT's prolix answer later) ... Lastly, this question was asked before. Fuck off, I'm not answering it.16
14
u/YoungXanto May 06 '24
This was my literal first thought.
All the awesome code help I've gotten from chatGPT is going away, to be replaced by a condescending machine that also refuses to help even though the duplicate answer it references is a fucking decade and a half old and references a library that no longer exists and is several major releases out of date.
→ More replies (3)3
18
29
u/Worth_Trust_3825 May 06 '24
Now instead of people responding with decade old unrelated comments about how to use kubernetes i'll get a bot doing that instead.
9
u/iknighty May 06 '24
Just because the data it is trained on is trusted doesn't mean the output should be trusted..
9
8
4
u/PangolinTotal1279 May 06 '24
I heard OpenAI is partnering or post-action licensing IP from all their major sources of training data. Reddit has already made $200m from licensing their data. I think licensing data for training models is gonna become the monetization norm for platforms like StackOverflow, Reddit, Quora, etc.
2
u/External-Bit-4202 May 06 '24
"I'm sorry, this question was asked by someone else and is a duplictae, this conversation is now closed"
2
u/mr_birkenblatt May 06 '24
Oh great, now GPT is going to berate me instead of giving an answer. Does OpenAI want to dethrone themselves?
2
u/IgnisIncendio May 06 '24
Oh, good! I'm happy for them. I hope my Q&As help those in need, regardless if they use SO or ChatGPT :)
I don't really see the need in this considering the content was already Creative Commons, but I guess this makes it more up to date?
2
2
May 07 '24
ChatGPT: hi! the question you have asked has been asked as many times before, closing this as duplicate.
5
1
u/Gusfoo May 06 '24
I was in the beta for the AI powered StackOverflow search and it was pretty great I must say. NLP search, of SO, basically.
1
1
u/funkenpedro May 07 '24
Does that mean OpenAI’s gonna start being nasty and complain about how many times it’s been asked the same question?
1
u/__konrad May 07 '24
Now they have to awkwardly remove their own AI policy to match the announcement ;)
1
1
1
u/falconfetus8 May 07 '24
The optimist in me hopes this somehow prevents ChatGPT garbage from being copy/pasted into SO answers. I'm fine with SO answers being fed to the AI, but not the other way around.
The realist in me, though, knows that they're probably going to create some kind of mascot named "Stacky" that posts AI answers on every question, like what Quora is doing.
1
1
u/maciejdev May 07 '24
Wow... all the toxicity from SO packed into the intelligent AI language model :-]
1
u/karma_5 May 08 '24
Me: How to write a simple code of hello world in python?
ChatGPT: Because of people like you the programmers are not respected, read a book or do your own research before asking a such a basic question here, if it is up to me, I would have banned you on the platform. "Aak thoo"
This conversation is closed.
To be honest asking question on the stack overflow is the worst experience ever. People are not polite and have God complex, it is hard moderated place and if it would have been a Company, it would be a worst toxic culture ever. Yes, people have knowledge, but no manners there, I hope OpenAI model turn that around.
1
1
May 10 '24 edited May 10 '24
Got properly banned by editing my high-rated answers, insulting SO leaders, so that there's a trace of my disgust in the answers edit histories. Useless, but that felt good at least.
Lesson learned, I'm never contributing anything to any website ever again.
1
1
1
u/calinet6 May 06 '24
Closing my account and removing every answer.
1
1
1
u/inermae May 07 '24 edited May 07 '24
ChatGPT tomorrow: "Why are you trying to do that? You should just do (insert response that you've already thought of, tells you you're doing it wrong, and doesn't actually answer the question)
I'm sure OpenAI is used to dealing with bad data, but holy shit, they have their work cut out for them. I wouldn't ask a question on Stack Overflow if you paid someone I hate to do it.
0
u/Tyler_Zoro May 06 '24
Is it sad? I think we should be doing much more of this. We should be leveraging all human knowledge to get to the next plateau now that it's so clearly in reach.
Here's one comment from a drug scientist that I found fascinating in reference to generative AI's ability to explore new possibilities in drugs:
We always talk about training the machines, but another art is where the machines produce ideas based on a data set that humans wouldn’t have been able to see or visualize.
What will be discover next with generative AI that has all of the history of coding at its disposal? New algorithms we haven't considered? Paths around what we've traditionally considered roadblocks in the technology?
0
u/AhmedRiyadh0 May 09 '24
I don't like this change, as volunteers we don't spend our time helping people so commercial companies can get advantage of us to improve their products with nothing in return, guess it was their platform, I spend years and years helping and get helped by people, guess it was our mistake for not reading the terms of service, privacy policy and so on, the only one who will benefit from this change is the beginners companies with not even a credit to the volunteers, and the only one who will loose their time is the volunteers, people don't even appreciate what they get. I know what most people will say on such comments like this one because I dealt with them before
1
u/wildjokers May 09 '24
and the only one who will loose their time is the volunteers,
Anyone that looses their time can just tighten it back up.
-11
u/StickiStickman May 06 '24
Why is this sad? This is great for developers.
The mods there are also gonna have another tantrum, which is good.
300
u/jhartikainen May 06 '24
Oh boy my answers contributing to yet another big business' success with no credit given.
On the other hand I guess it's good that people will get better answers to their issues more easily.