Timeline for Stack Overflow Inc. changes policy regarding enforcement of AI-Generated posts
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 8, 2023 at 1:00 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
|
|
| Jun 29, 2023 at 23:33 | comment | added | Paul | @ArrowRoot Agreed. Until they start spitting out markdown, a wall of text in SF is a red flag. | |
| Jun 29, 2023 at 14:00 | comment | added | Arrow Root | I'm not sure if you guys are right with "there is no allowable way to identify them", look this: serverfault.com/questions/1135072/… | |
| Jun 6, 2023 at 20:07 | comment | added | Esther | @Ward-ReinstateMonica exactly. It's misleading to say that the "policy regarding enforcement has changed," but that the AI posts are still disallowed - a law that won't be enforced may as well not exist. | |
| Jun 6, 2023 at 20:06 | history | became hot meta post | |||
| Jun 6, 2023 at 19:06 | comment | added | Ward - Trying Codidact Mod | @esther As I said in a comment to an answer, the new policy requires moderation of AI-generated posts to be done on the exactly the same basis as posts by humans. We're not allowed to judge a post based on whether it is AI-generated except in a vanishingly rare situation. If we evaluate posts equally regardless of whether they're written by a human or an AI, then the original title is accurate: SO Inc now allows AI posts. | |
| Jun 6, 2023 at 15:54 | comment | added | Esther | @Phillipe it's your title change that's misleading, not the original one. Not banning content for being AI content explicitly allows AI content. | |
| Jun 6, 2023 at 8:30 | answer | added | D.W. | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 5, 2023 at 13:21 | comment | added | vidarlo | The title change is certainly interesting. The attempts at damage control probably creates more damage right now. | |
| Jun 5, 2023 at 10:04 | history | edited | PhilippeStaffMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
That title was just deceptive.
|
| Jun 5, 2023 at 9:48 | history | edited | PhilippeStaffMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Jun 1, 2023 at 20:13 | comment | added | user9517 | This is interesting I wish them well. | |
| May 31, 2023 at 18:50 | answer | added | anx | timeline score: 7 | |
| May 31, 2023 at 11:42 | answer | added | vidarlo | timeline score: 6 | |
| May 31, 2023 at 9:10 | answer | added | user9517 | timeline score: 12 | |
| May 31, 2023 at 6:29 | comment | added | Cody Gray | Truthfully, that's the double bind that we're in. Lack of attribution of ChatGPT is plagiarism, which is not allowed by long-standing site policy, as well as the new new CoC. However, the late-breaking policy from staff is that we're not allowed to call someone out on using ChatGPT unless they've admitted it, and if they've admitted it, then it's not plagiarism. So, I don't know what to make of it, other than a very clear instruction that we're not allowed to remove AI-generated content, exactly as Ward has summarized it here. | |
| May 31, 2023 at 0:21 | comment | added | yagmoth555 Mod | @CodyGray I like your view, I know on another platform that I moderate on it’s a ChatGPT attribution that is asked to the user to be wrote in the answer, or the mod to add it if suspected. Its less problematic than a ban for the site company, and the user is tagged atleast for such use. | |
| May 30, 2023 at 22:49 | comment | added | Cody Gray | It's also counter-productive to have one when you can't use it as the basis for suspending users who post such answers. On SO, we've discussed continuing to enforce an effective ban on AI-generated content on the basis of it being low quality, even opening up (for us) a whole new can of worms by evaluating the technical merits of that content. But even though that would be permissible under the company's latest decree (and that loophole could close at any time), it makes for a far worse experience for the users on receiving end, who can no longer be told why they suspended. | |
| May 30, 2023 at 20:43 | comment | added | Ward - Trying Codidact Mod | You can't really have a policy against AI-generated posts when there is no allowable way to identify them. | |
| May 30, 2023 at 20:41 | comment | added | Ganesh Sittampalam | "To be clear: AI-generated posts are allowed, as long as they meet other post guidelines (e.g. for quality)." - this is wrong - a site can still have a policy against AI-generated posts and then they would not be allowed. | |
| May 30, 2023 at 20:18 | history | asked | Ward - Trying CodidactMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |