IDC：2016年第四季度全球专用备份设备市场下滑4.1%
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
43 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 4 at 13:07 | comment | added | willeM_ Van Onsem | While the CEO of SO thinks evidently otherwise. I actually don't mind the graph going down: I like it more to spend some time answering an advanced question than having to explain for the thousand time how a class is different from a dictionary. So ChatGPT is very good as "first line help". | |
| Apr 24 at 12:30 | history | edited | Nelson Teixeira | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Corrected typo
|
| Apr 24 at 12:29 | comment | added | Nelson Teixeira | I have removed the second graph that was causing distress. But this only proves my point above: as soon as people have some alternative not to deal with bullying, they'll change in a heartbeat. No I was not cherry picking data. I just tried to enhance the relevant period of time this thread is all about. You guys just interpreted it using an hostile attitude. And this is what people (and me) are mostly fed up: hostility. If this hostile attitude is commonplace in your country/region that's your cultural problem. I just want peace and being treated with respect. | |
| Apr 24 at 12:13 | history | edited | Nelson Teixeira | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Removed the info that was interpreted as cherry picked data
|
| Apr 19 at 12:24 | comment | added | Dr. Snoopy | ChatGPT was not introduced in January 2022, it was November 2022. This makes the argument much worse, as you cherrypicked from the wrong date. | |
| Apr 16 at 17:19 | comment | added | Nelson Teixeira | If that's how you read it, that was not my intention. For real. The idea was just give more detail to the relevante period/theme. Sorry if I have made it look like that. | |
| Apr 15 at 23:05 | comment | added | Hoppeduppeanut | Is it, though? It just reads to me like you're cherry-picking data that looks good to you (Fig 2) to prove a point, whatever that point might be, but the full dataset (Fig 1) actually works to disprove your point. The fact is that declining question counts have been a "problem" on SO since at least 2018 (with a small bounce in the COVID outbreak years), at least 4 (5 rounded) years before the prevalence of consumer-friendly genAI tools. | |
| Apr 15 at 7:34 | comment | added | Nelson Teixeira | I made the second because this thread is about AI, making it especially relevant. | |
| Apr 15 at 7:14 | comment | added | PhobosFerro | The first graph shows that posts per day started dropping way before ChatGPT got introduced. Isolating a graph starting from 2022 ignoring the previous drop and making it seem like it's all because of ChatGTP seems a bit disingenuous to me. | |
| Apr 15 at 6:34 | comment | added | Hoppeduppeanut |
I'm not sure what these graphs are supposed to prove. Yes, there has been a general downturn in the number of posts across SO (Which is not necessarily a bad thing, considering the emphasis on quality of Q&A and not quantity), but this has been occurring before genAI tools have been widely available. correlation != causation
|
|
| Apr 15 at 5:39 | history | edited | Nelson Teixeira | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Complemented answer
|
| Jul 9, 2024 at 2:20 | comment | added | user4188092 | Uber and Airbnb opening up their industries to a much greater range of participants made those participants much weaker because they had far more competition for the same resources, the platforms themselves, giving the latter all the power. | |
| Jul 9, 2024 at 2:16 | comment | added | user4188092 | The Uber learning lesson for SO here is to not just become a provider to search engines, as that weakens the power that their data gives them, but develop their own AI. It now looks too late for that, so expect SO to become less used as a platform where the questions are asked, and so eventually disappear because it will not be a source of new data anymore. | |
| Jul 9, 2024 at 2:12 | comment | added | user4188092 | Uber is a bad idea, not because it is new technology, but because the business model is exploitative and disempowering for everyone except the platform owner. First Uber promised freedom for drivers and customers, but then once they reached a base of power, they screwed their drivers, and now are screwing their customers. The gig economy is bad because the platforms are bad. They broke the taxi industry out of its artificially inflated delusion by opening up the industry to a much wider range of participants, like Airbnb did for renting, rather than any technological innovation. | |
| May 21, 2024 at 2:52 | comment | added | Nelson Teixeira | I'd like to apologize to @philipxy and with anyone that felt offended by my jokes with the Borgs. They where intended as light jokes as I find that the last moves by SO prove my point. If they felt rude, they really don't belong here as I'm the first to criticize rudeness in SO and I gladly accept the edit. Again sorry. | |
| May 21, 2024 at 2:30 | history | rollback | philipxy |
Rollback to Revision 3 - roll back rudeness
|
|
| May 19, 2024 at 8:19 | comment | added | Cerbrus | AI powered search is not the same as using AI to dump questions onto SO. You're comparing apples and oranges, and weakening your entire argument while doing so. Meanwhile, you haven't answered a single misconception that was pointed out to you in these comments. | |
| May 19, 2024 at 8:10 | history | edited | Nelson Teixeira | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Complemented answer
|
| Nov 1, 2023 at 18:14 | history | edited | Nelson Teixeira | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Improved answer.
|
| Jun 12, 2023 at 11:18 | comment | added | Karl Knechtel | "First the level of ChatGPT answers on this matter (most upvoted answers) just shows how advanced it is." - no, it really doesn't. Instead, it illustrates how vacuous typical marketing-speak really is. The top answer was labelled as being "for comedic and ironic purposes". Try actually reading the comments - you can easily see that people don't actually think the output reflects any insight, let alone being "terrifying". All the sarcastic answer proves is that people who wish to signal sarcasm in text are heavily reliant on certain conventions, as they lack tone-of-voice indicators. | |
| Mar 21, 2023 at 10:30 | comment | added | David | Why are all the ChatGPT supporting answers analogies with things that have nothing to do with the subject matter? | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 22:41 | comment | added | starball Mod | "If you can't beat them, join them - a popular proverb." We aren't setting out to do the same thing as a chatbot. we are not a chatbot. See also The future role of Stack Exchange vs. emerging AIs and Could ChatGPT be a viable way to answer people's questions?- both of which I have written answers to. | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 19:25 | comment | added | Cerbrus | "I know this will be unpopular because it will make more difficult to build reputation points" That has absolutely nothing to do with this... | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 19:24 | comment | added | Cerbrus | "If we can't get OpenAI to help, integration with ChatGPT is the only possible option." Again, why does it need to be on SO? Who is going to pay for that? What benefit is there to having SO embed the mediocre output, over users just going to ChatGPT if they want to? | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 19:23 | comment | added | Cerbrus | "remember that ChatGPT is learning and its answers will only get better and better." Blatantly incorrect. The "P" in "GPT" stands for Pre-trained. It's not learning, and it's not getting significantly smarter. Certainly not smart enough to provide answers with any measure of consistent technical accuracy. | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 19:21 | comment | added | Cerbrus | "the fact that some users are really fed up with aggressive answers from humans in SO and would much rather prefer to interact with a AI that treated them good." Why does that interaction need to be on SO? | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 19:21 | comment | added | Cerbrus | "This worries me the most because disruptive technologies have to be embraced from the start or things will only get worse." Why? Why should they be embraced? How should they be? Why is that an improvement to SO? That's just an empty statement. | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 19:19 | comment | added | Cerbrus | "I saw that most people see the ban as the correct option, without having a reasonable way of distinguishing AI-generated answers from human answers <...> But I really don't think that humans will have the ability to tell one from the other." Blatantly incorrect. There's detection software out there that's plenty accurate to detect what is and isn't AI-generated. | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 19:17 | comment | added | Cerbrus | There are so many misconceptions in here... And none of them are not yet discussed in the answers here. | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 19:13 | history | edited | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Active reading [<en.wiktionary.org/wiki/physical#Adjective> <en.wiktionary.org/wiki/worry#Verb> <en.wiktionary.org/wiki/technology#Noun> <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_clause_structure#Run-on_sentences> etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.]. [(its = possessive, it's = "it is" or "it has".]
|
| Mar 16, 2023 at 18:45 | comment | added | beaker | "But if it gets really good at it, there is no possible future for SO." Stack Overflow did not ban that AI. It banned the AI that's really lousy at it, but makes it really easy for someone who has no clue what they're talking about to post a dozen plausible-sounding, but wrong, answers a day. | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 18:45 | comment | added | BDL | After ~30 answers that all state that AI is the future (I agree with that) and that ChatGPT is a big step forward (also agree), there is not a single post here that states a reason why ChatGPT answers should be posted on SO. Or how we deal with the fallout of people copy-pasting AI generated answers faster than they can be reviewed without any checking. | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 18:35 | comment | added | Ezward | I think AI is an important and useful tool; I use it. However 1) including AI generated answers in SO, which is used as a corpus for AI training, creates a circular training; bad for AI. 2) Users can just go to chatGPT for their answers if they want an AI answer/experience; in fact I would suggest that 3) SO should remain a place where humans experts provide answers; it should keep it's distinction (and so then also remain a clean corpus for AI training). 4) Let's not homogenize SO and ChatGPT; they each have distinct advantages that go way if SO becomes a static repository of AI answers. | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 17:57 | comment | added | Robert Longson | @Makyen I guess it would be like hiring a cab and having the cab driver confidently take you to some other destination and then drop you off. Eventually you might realise you're in the wrong part of town, or even the wrong town altogether. | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 17:22 | comment | added | Makoto | I'll put it more laconically. You can ask ChatGPT whatever you want. It might even work for you. But you shouldn't be posting it here and representing it as your work. Worse, you shouldn't really look to use it in your code and represent it as your work, since depending on what you're working on, you could get bit hard by licensing. | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 17:21 | comment | added | MisterMiyagi | TLDR: Why should volunteers build and curate a library of answers that can just be generated on demand? Why generate just one answer when ChatGPT doesn’t provide the same answer consistently? Most importantly, why not just use ChatGPT directly? | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 17:21 | comment | added | Makyen Mod | Uber vs cab drivers is a flawed analogy. Using an Uber, you get to your destination, just like a cab. If you have an "answer" provided by ChatGPT or other AI generation (at the current level of capability), you don't have an actual answer. You have "eloquent bullshit" that sounds like an answer. It is, sometimes, an answer, but it's quite likely to be hilariously wrong, self-contradictory, and/or insidiously wrong such that it takes a subject matter expert to see that it's incorrect. So, it's not actually an answer and is likely to substantially mislead readers. That's not a replacement. | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 17:15 | comment | added | MisterMiyagi | Instead of comparing people to physically violent folks, I recommend to actually acknowledge and address the points that have been brought up for the umpteenth time already. | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 17:14 | comment | added | VLAZ | "remember that ChatGPT is learning and it's answers will only get better and better. What are wrong or bad answers now will probably be the best answers in the future." then why don't we discuss this in the future, rather than the present. We act on what we have right now. And right now ChatGPT can generate content that is very wrong and potentially dangerous. Which is a big part of the reason why it was banned. | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 17:10 | history | undeleted | Nelson Teixeira | ||
| Mar 16, 2023 at 17:10 | history | edited | Nelson Teixeira | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
corrected typo
|
| Mar 16, 2023 at 16:53 | history | deleted | Nelson Teixeira | via Vote | |
| Mar 16, 2023 at 16:51 | history | answered | Nelson Teixeira | CC BY-SA 4.0 |