If this is true, then we should prepare to be shout at by chatgpt why we didnt knew already that simple error.
ChatGPT now just says “read the docs!” To every question
And then links to a similar sounding but ultimately totally unrelated site.
Stack overflow was the pioneer of hallucinations.
Nah, it just marks your question as duplicate.
Always love those answers, well if you read the 700 page white paper on this one command set in one module then you would understand… do you think I have the time to read 37000 pages of bland ass documentation yearly on top of doing my actual job? Come the fuck on.
I guess some of these guys have so many heads on their crews that they don’t have much work to do anymore but that’s not the case for most
Honestly, that wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.
This message brought to you by chatgpt bot.
I got an email ban.
1609 hours logged 431 solved threads
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.
Is this a joke?
Removed by mod
NGL I read it and laughed at the AI-like response.
Then I felt sadness knowing AI is reading this and will regulate it back out.
AI-generated content trained on LLMs is poison for training, so that’s actually a good thing :)
It’s not. This is how this person talks in every comment they make.
Removed by mod
Tough to say. I honestly don’t know. The user name is the classic word_wordNumber that bots use. The comments are long though. But its comments are spaced far apart timewise.
If it’s a joke account it’s doing it rarely.
Comments are clearly ChatGPT I know because I did it once to troll some sub too. I instantly recognize the pirate ‚swashbuckling’ comment in their profile history you get when you type ‚write a funny comment like a Redditor’
Damn, I read some of their other comments. What a said and weird life this person might have to write wall of texts just to gather dozens of downvotes
Maybe they are a walking ai poisoning attack. I mean the whole person
The account reads like they’re pasting AI-generated responses to everything. Maybe it’s someone’s experiment. The prompt must include “You are a self-righteous asshole.”
Yes and it’s very well done which is why 121 people who didn’t get it downvoted it. ha! No good comment, amirite.
Check the post history. Dude just seems like an ass.
Looks like a chat bot instructed to say something contrarian
I took it as a joke because they can just change the rules whenever they want but Idk I might have misunderstood.
Looks like an AI crafted response to me.
Nah, but the user is. Their post history is… interesting.
Shit like this makes me so glad that I just don’t sign up for these things if I don’t have to.
30 page TOS? You know what, I don’t need to make an account that bad.
ITT: People unable to recognize a joke
Jokes are supposed to be funny.
Take all you want, it will only take a few hallucinations before no one trusts LLMs to write code or give advice
[…]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 ;-)
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.
That’s an important point, and and it ties into the way ChatGPT and other LLMs take advantage of a flaw in the human brain:
Because it impersonates a human, people are more inherently willing to trust it. To think it’s “smart”. It’s dangerous how people who don’t know any better (and many people that do know better) will defer to it, consciously or unconsciously, as an authority and never second guess it.
And the fact it’s a one on one conversation, no comment sections, no one else looking at the responses to call them out as bullshit, the user just won’t second guess it.
When you paste that code you do it in your private IDE, in a dev environment and you test it thoroughly before handing it off to the next person to test before it goes to production.
Hitting up ChatPPT for the answer to a question that you then vomit out in a meeting as if it’s knowledge is totally different.
Which is why I used the former as an example and not the latter.
I’m not trying to make a general case for AI generated code here… just poking fun at the notion that a few errors will put people off using it.
Split segment of data without pii to staging database, test pasted script, completely rewrite script over the next three hours.
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.
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.
The issue on the copyright front is the same kind of professional standards and professional ethics that should stop you from just outright copying open-source code into your application. It may be very small portions of code, and you may never get caught, but you simply don’t do that. If you wouldn’t steal a function from a copyleft open-source project, you wouldn’t use that function when copilot suggests it. Idk if copilot has added license tracing yet (been a while since I used it), but absent that feature you are entirely blind to the extent which it’s output is infringing on licenses. That’s huge legal liability to your employer, and an ethical coinflip.
Regarding understanding of code, you’re right. You have to own what you submit into the codebase.
The drawback/risks of using LLMs or copilot are more to do with the fact it generates the likely code, which means it’s statistically biased to generate whatever common and unnoticeable bugged logic exists in the average github repo it trained on. It will at some point give you code you read and say “yep, looks right to me” and then actually has a subtle buffer overflow issue, or actually fails in an edge case, because in a way that is just unnoticeable enough.
And you can make the argument that it’s your responsibility to find that (it is). But I’ve seen some examples thrown around on twitter of just slightly bugged loops; I’ve seen examples of it replicated known vulnerabilities; and we have that package name fiasco in the that first article above.
If I ask myself would I definitely have caught that? the answer is only a maybe. If it replicates a vulnerability that existed in open-source code for years before it was noticed, do you really trust yourself to identify that the moment copilot suggests it to you?
I guess it all depends on stakes too. If you’re generating buggy JavaScript who cares.
Yeah but if you’re not feeding it protected code and just asking simple questions for libraries etc then it’s good
I feel like it had to cause an actual disaster with assets getting destroyed to become part of common knowledge (like the challenger shuttle or something).
The quality really doesn’t matter.
If they manage to strip any concept of authenticity, ownership or obligation from the entirety of human output and stick it behind a paywall, that’s pretty much the whole ball game.
If we decide later that this is actually a really bullshit deal – that they get everything for free and then sell it back to us – then they’ll surely get some sort of grandfather clause because “Whoops, we already did it!”
Have you tried recent models? They’re not perfect no, but they can usually get you most of the way there if not all the way. If you know how to structure the problem and prompt, granted.
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.
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
I use it all the time and it’s brilliant when you put in the basic effort to learn how to use it effectively.
It’s allowing me and other open source devs to increase the scope and speed of our contributions, just talking through problems is invaluable. Greedy selfish people wanting to destroy things that help so many is exactly the rolling coal mentality - fuck everyone else I don’t want the world to change around me! Makes me so despondent about the future of humanity.
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.
Hear me out. Bottle caps.
'Nuff said!
Someone comes up with something good: look what I made, we can use this to better humanity!
Corporations: How can we make money off of this?
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.
Oh I didn’t consider deleting my answers. Thanks for the good idea
BarbraStackOverflow.I’d be shocked if deleted comments weren’t retained by them
They have been un-deleting after they ban.
They are also retained by anyone who has archived them., like OpenAI or Google. Thus making their AIs more valuable.
To really pull up the ladder, they will have to protest the Internet Archive and Common Crawl, too. It’s just typical right-wing bullshit; acting on emotion and against their own interests.
Letting corporations “disrupt” forums was a mistake.
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.
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.
Agreed on that last part, making that the default would be a great solution. I could also use a signature in comments, like that guy who always puts the “Commercial AI thingy” but automatically.
Well, supposedly people can use it without paying and without account, though I cannot confirm the last part in the official site.
Open access != Copyleft, but its a decent start.
Can you explain?
Copyleft lisenses are anti-copywrite, copywrite lisenses. They guarantee any random person the right to use and (usually) modify and (usually) distribute the work (art, program, etc.) with some noteworthy terms and conditions. Open access is where they provide a good or service for free but are not legally required to do so.
I bitch about it not being open sourced like llama2.
I think you still have to have an account (last time I used it anyway), but you’re right, there is a tier you don’t have to pay any money for. It’s just an email address but whatever. You can use it via their website but afaik they haven’t released a free model based on the data they’ve scraped off us, so you can’t host it on your own hardware and properly do what you want with it. I have heard though that commercial websites were/are using ChatGPT bots for customer service and you can easily use the customer service chatbots on their website to do other random stuff like writing bash scripts or making yo mama jokes.
Maybe we should replace Stack Overflow with another site where experts can exchange information? We can call it “Experts Exchange”.
codidact … Stack overflow had a mass exodus of mods a 2-3 years ago and a some of them made codidact.
Any discussion on making it ActivityPub enabled?
I didn’t see any, but would be curious if anyone else had.
Messages that people post on Stack Exchange sites are literally licensed CC-BY-SA, the whole point of which is to enable them to be shared and used by anyone for any purpose. One of the purposes of such a license is to make sure knowledge is preserved by allowing everyone to make and share copies.
That license would require chatgpt to provide attribution every time it used training data of anyone there and also would require every output using that training data to be placed under the same license. This would actually legally prevent anything chatgpt created even in part using this training data from being closed source. Assuming they obviously aren’t planning on doing that this is massively shitting on the concept of licensing.
CC attribution doesn’t require you to necessarily have the credits immediately with the content, but it would result in one of the world’s longest web pages as it would need to have the name of the poster and a link to every single comment they used as training data, and stack overflow has roughly 60 million questions and answers combined.
They don’t need to republish the 60 million questions, they just have to credit the authors, which are surely way fewer (but IANAL)
appropriate credit — If supplied, you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material. CC licenses prior to Version 4.0 also require you to provide the title of the material if supplied, and may have other slight differences.
Maybe that could be just a link to the user page, but otherwise I would see it as needing to link to each message or comment they used.
IF its outputs are considered derivative works.
Ethically and logically it seems like output based on training data is clearly derivative work. Legally I suspect AI will continue to be the new powerful tool that enables corporations to shit on and exploit the works of countless people.
The problem is the legal system and thus IP law enforcement is very biased towards very large corporations. Until that changes corporations will continue, as they already were, exploiting.
I don’t see AI making it worse.
They are not. A derivative would be a translation, or theater play, nowadays, a game, or movie. Even stuff set in the same universe.
Expanding the meaning of “derivative” so massively would mean that pretty much any piece of code ever written is a derivative of technical documentation and even textbooks.
So far, judges simply throw out these theories, without even debating them in court. Society would have to move a lot further to the right, still, before these ideas become realistic.
Maybe but I don’t think that is well tested legally yet. For instance, I’ve learned things from there, but when I share some knowledge I don’t attribute it to all the underlying sources of my knowledge. If, on the other hand, I shared a quote or copypasta from there I’d be compelled to do so I suppose.
I’m just not sure how neural networks will be treated in this regard. I assume they’ll conveniently claim that they can’t tie answers directly to underpinning training data.
Share Alike
I can’t wait to download my own version of the latest gpt model
It does help to know what those funny letters mean. Now we wait for regulators to catch up…
/tangent
If anything, we’re a very long way from anything close to intelligent, OpenAI (and subsequently MS, being publicly traded) sold investors on the pretense that LLMs are close to being “AGI” and now more and more data is necessary to achieving that.
If you know the internet, you know there’s a lot of garbage. I for one can’t wait for garbage-in garbage-out to start taking its toll.
Also I’m surprised how well open source models have shaped up, its certainly worth a look. I occasionally use a local model for “brainstorming” in the loosest terms, as I generally know what I’m expecting, but it’s sometimes helpful to read tasks laid out. Also comfort in that nothing even need leave my network, and even in a pinch I got some answers when my network was offline.
It gives a little hope while corps get to blatantly violate copyright while having wielding it so heavily, that advancements have been so great in open source.
You really don’t need anything near as complex as AI…a simple script could be configured to automatically close the issue as solved with a link to a randomly-selected unrelated issue.
So vanilla stack overflow?
That’s the joke
I’m slow.
Based and same-here-often…pilled
Begun, the AI wars have.
Faces on T-shirts, you must print print. Fake facts into old forum comments, you must edit. Poison the data well, you must.
I mean we aren’t even fighting AI, we are still fighting greedy little turds
Problem is, it still results in turning the Internet to shit. We just do it manually to preempt the AI doing it.
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.
Accelerationism is like being on a plane and wishing it crashes when one of the engine fails.
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.
I mean, sure but in the context of individual websites I don’t see it being a big deal. There will be replacements, and relatively quickly. Accelerationism applied to major societal structures is a terrible idea though.
Except it’s not like a plane because we can stop using specific websites whenever we like, and build our own websites to whittle away at their hegemony.
I despise this use of mod power in response to a protest. It’s our content to be sabotaged if we want - if Stack Overlords disagree then to hell with them.
I’ll add Stack Overflow to my personal ban list, just below Reddit.
Once submitted to stack overflow/Reddit/literally every platform, it’s no longer your content. It sucks, but you’ve implicitly agreed to it when creating your account.
While true, it’s stupid that things are that way. They shouldn’t be able to hide behind the idea that “we’re not responsible for what our users publish, we’re more like a public forum” while also having total ownership over that content.
you’ve implicitly agreed to it when creating your account
Many people would agree with that, probably most laws do. However I doubt many users have actually bothered to read the unnecessarily long document, fewer have understood the legalese, and the terms have likely already been changed ~pray I don’t alter it any further~. That’s a low and shady bar of consent. It indeed sucks and I think people should leave those platforms, but I’m also open to laws that would invalidate that part of the EULA.
primary use for AI is self destructing your website.
deleted by creator
Remember when adding the word blockchain to an Iced Tea company’s name caused share prices to jump?
is this real? I can’t tell anymore.
I googled it and I wish it wasn’t
a little-known micro-cap stock called Long Island Iced Tea Corp. (LTEA) said Thursday that it’s now “Long Blockchain Corp.,” and its stock leaped more than 200 percent at the open of trading. Shares closed up 183 percent.
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
This is like my friend who “invested” in Doggy (not Doge) coin “because it was going to explode and become highly valuable” even though it was only worth like .1% of what Doge was worth like two years back… He’s a teacher.
Or my other friend that invested thousands in Etherium like 2 years back, while knowing basically nothing about “The Etherium Network”, or anything crypto related. He just knew that he could potentially make money off of it like he could with stocks. I asked him like a year later if he ever made anything off of it and he said “not really”, and said he had reinvested the money into other things (I forget which, it wasn’t crypto related) 🤣
I dunno. AlphaFold 3 is pretty big.
