• Guru_Insights99@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      Well, it is important to comply with the terms of service established by the website. It is highly recommended to familiarize oneself with the legally binding documents of the platform, including the Terms of Service (Section 2.1), User Agreement (Section 4.2), and Community Guidelines (Section 3.1), which explicitly outline the obligations and restrictions imposed upon users. By refraining from engaging in activities explicitly prohibited within these sections, you will be better positioned to maintain compliance with the platform’s rules and regulations and not receive email bans in the future.

  • Rooki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 years ago

    If this is true, then we should prepare to be shout at by chatgpt why we didnt knew already that simple error.

      • Dave@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        Hey ChatGPT, how can I …

        “Locking as this is a duplicate of [unrelated question]”

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      You joke.

      This would have been probably early last year? Had to look up how to do something in fortran (because fortran) and the answer was very much in the voice of that one dude on the Intel forums who has been answering every single question for decades(?) at this point. Which means it also refused to do anything with features newer than 1992 and was worthless.

      Tried again while chatting with an old work buddy a few months back and it looks like they updated to acknowledging f99 and f03 exist. So assume that was all stack overflow.

    • bobalot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      These companies don’t realise their most engaged users generate a disproportionate amount of their content.

      They will just go to their own spaces.

      I think this a good thing in the long run, the internet will become decentralised again.

  • Hypx@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 years ago

    Eventually, we will need a fediverse version of StackOverflow, Quora, etc.

    • hikaru755@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It’s not quite that simple, though. GDPR is only concerned with personally identifiable information. Answers and comments on SO rarely contain that kind of information as long as you delete the username on them, so it’s not technically against GDPR if you keep the contents.

      • windpunch@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        You could argue that people can be identified by their writing style. I have no idea how far you’d get with that though.

        • Fiona@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Frankly I don’t see any way whatsoever that this would fly, and that’s a good thing!

          Imagine what it would mean for software-development if one angry dev could request the deletion of all their contributions at a moments notice by pointing to a right to be forgotten. Documentation is really not meaningfully different from that.

  • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    At the end of the day, this is just yet another example of how capitalism is an extractive system. Unprotected resources are used not for the benefit of all but to increase and entrench the imbalance of assets. This is why they are so keen on DRM and copyright and why they destroy the environment and social cohesion. The thing is, people want to help each other; not for profit but because we have a natural and healthy imperative to do the most good.

    There is a difference between giving someone a present and then them giving it to another person, and giving someone a present and then them selling it. One is kind and helpful and the other is disgusting and produces inequality.

    If you’re gonna use something for free then make the product of it free too.

    An idea for the fediverse and beyond: maybe we should be setting up instances with copyleft licences for all content posted to them. I actually don’t mind if you wanna use my comments to make an LLM. It could be useful. But give me (and all the other people who contributed to it) the LLM for free, like we gave it to you. And let us use it for our benefit, not just yours.

    • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      An idea for the fediverse and beyond: maybe we should be setting up instances with copyleft licences for all content posted to them. I actually don’t mind if you wanna use my comments to make an LLM. It could be useful. But give me (and all the other people who contributed to it) the LLM for free, like we gave it to you. And let us use it for our benefit, not just yours.

      This seems like a very fair and reasonable way to deal with the issue.

  • kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    First, they sent the missionaries. They built communities, facilities for the common good, and spoke of collaboration and mutual prosperity. They got so many of us to buy into their belief system as a result.

    Then, they sent the conquistadors. They took what we had built under their guidance, and claimed we “weren’t using it” and it was rightfully theirs to begin with.

  • Bell@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Take all you want, it will only take a few hallucinations before no one trusts LLMs to write code or give advice

    • sramder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      […]will only take a few hallucinations before no one trusts LLMs to write code or give advice

      Because none of us have ever blindly pasted some code we got off google and crossed our fingers ;-)

      • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        It’s way easier to figure that out than check ChatGPT hallucinations. There’s usually someone saying why a response in SO is wrong, either in another response or a comment. You can filter most of the garbage right at that point, without having to put it in your codebase and discover that the hard way. You get none of that information with ChatGPT. The data spat out is not equivalent.

    • Spedwell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      We should already be at that point. We have already seen LLMs’ potential to inadvertently backdoor your code and to inadvertently help you violate copyright law (I guess we do need to wait to see what the courts rule, but I’ll be rooting for the open-source authors).

      If you use LLMs in your professional work, you’re crazy. I would never be comfortably opening myself up to the legal and security liabilities of AI tools.

      • Cubes@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        If you use LLMs in your professional work, you’re crazy

        Eh, we use copilot at work and it can be pretty helpful. You should always check and understand any code you commit to any project, so if you just blindly paste flawed code (like with stack overflow,) that’s kind of on you for not understanding what you’re doing.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      We already have those near constantly. And we still keep asking queries.

      People assume that LLMs need to be ready to replace a principle engineer or a doctor or lawyer with decades of experience.

      This is already at the point where we can replace an intern or one of the less good junior engineers. Because anyone who has done code review or has had to do rounds with medical interns know… they are idiots who need people to check their work constantly. An LLM making up some functions because they saw it in stack overflow but never tested is not at all different than a hotshot intern who copied some code from stack overflow and never tested it.

      Except one costs a lot less…

      • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        This is already at the point where we can replace an intern or one of the less good junior engineers.

        This is a bad thing.

        Not just because it will put the people you’re talking about out of work in the short term, but because it will prevent the next generation of developers from getting that low-level experience. They’re not “idiots”, they’re inexperienced. They need to get experience. They won’t if they’re replaced by automation.

        • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          First a nearly unprecedented world-wide pandemic followed almost immediately by record-breaking layoffs then AI taking over the world, man it is really not a good time to start out as a newer developer. I feel so fortunate that I started working full-time as a developer nearly a decade ago.

          • morrowind@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Dude the pandemic was amazing for devs, tech companies hiring like mad, really easy to get your foot in the door. Now, between all the layoffs and AI it is hellish

    • capital@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      People keep saying this but it’s just wrong.

      Maybe I haven’t tried the language you have but it’s pretty damn good at code.

      Granted, whatever it puts out needs to be tested and possibly edited but that’s the same thing we had to do with Stack Overflow answers.

      • CeeBee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I’ve tried a lot of scenarios and languages with various LLMs. The biggest takeaway I have is that AI can get you started on something or help you solve some issues. I’ve generally found that anything beyond a block or two of code becomes useless. The more it generates the more weirdness starts popping up, or it outright hallucinates.

        For example, today I used an LLM to help me tighten up an incredibly verbose bit of code. Today was just not my day and I knew there was a cleaner way of doing it, but it just wasn’t coming to me. A quick “make this cleaner: <code>” and I was back to the rest of the code.

        This is what LLMs are currently good for. They are just another tool like tab completion or code linting

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Maybe for people who have no clue how to work with an LLM. They don’t have to be perfect to still be incredibly valuable, I make use of them all the time and hallucinations aren’t a problem if you use the right tools for the job in the right way.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        The last time I saw someone talk about using the right LLM tool for the job, they were describing turning two minutes of writing a simple map/reduce into one minute of reading enough to confirm the generated one worked. I think I’ll pass on that.

  • merthyr1831@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    If i was stack overflow I would’ve transferred my backups to OpenAI weeks before the announcement for this very reason.

    This is also assuming the LLMs weren’t already fed with scraped SO data years ago.

    It’s a small act of rebellion but SO already has your data and they’ll do whatever they want with it, including mine.

    • trailee@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      There’s also the possibility of adding to the wonderful irony of making the AI more useful than the original by having content that’s no longer accessible through through the original. It doesn’t get more enshittified than that, even if Prashanth Chandrasekar is too out of touch to ever regret his decision.

  • Daerun@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Good to know that stackoverflow will not be a trustable place to find solutuons anymore.

  • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    See, this is why we can’t have nice things. Money fucks it up, every time. Fuck money, it’s a shitty backwards idea. We can do better than this.

  • 3volver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    The enshittification is very real and is spreading constantly. Companies will leech more from their employees and users until things start to break down. Acceleration is the only way.

      • 3volver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        That’s a terrible analogy, implying the wish that everyone on the plane dies if one engine fails.

        It’s like an airline company has been complete shit for decades, wanting to see them fail fast so that a better airline company can take their place.

  • bitwolf@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Rather than delete, modify the question so its wrong. Then the ai will hallucinate.