Timeline for Should this site take an official position on answers generated by ChatGPT?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 15, 2022 at 19:14 | comment | added | Anonymous Physicist | @Araucaria-Nothereanymore. "Real people have something to lose from making unrealistic, false or disprovable claims." Why do you think that applies to this site? In my view, reputation points are worthless. | |
| Dec 15, 2022 at 17:30 | comment | added | user165871 | @AnonymousPhysicist Here's an example, suppose an answer says, "In my experience, abc", but in actual fact there are is no such experience to draw on. The fact that experienced academic have experienced abc has non-trivial advisory value. Real people have something to lose from making unrealistic, false or disprovable claims. ChatGPT does not. | |
| Dec 14, 2022 at 2:43 | comment | added | Anonymous Physicist | I'm not disputing that ChatGPT has disadvantages; I'm just saying posts with disadvantages were here before ChatGPT. Nobody has yet articulated how bad ChatGPT content is different from bad human content. (There are already rate limits, so post rate isn't a difference.) | |
| Dec 14, 2022 at 2:40 | comment | added | Anonymous Physicist | @GoodDeeds Banning is a kind of curation. You said it is difficult to curate. How is it not difficult to ban? | |
| Dec 12, 2022 at 7:22 | comment | added | GoodDeeds | @AnonymousPhysicist 'How can "ban it" be consistent with "its very difficult to curate?"': because it has serious disadvantages without having any meaningful advantage, as detailed in the other two answers. As for precise information, I am sure research is ongoing on that question at the moment. | |
| Dec 9, 2022 at 23:34 | comment | added | Anonymous Physicist | 10% error is fine. For all I know the false positive rate might be 50%. | |
| Dec 9, 2022 at 23:15 | comment | added | Anonymous Physicist | Here's an example of precise information: x% of ChatGPT posts have a negative score. Humans can identify ChatGPT posts with y% false positives and z% false negatives. | |
| Dec 9, 2022 at 23:13 | comment | added | Anonymous Physicist | @GoodDeeds You said there are examples where ChatGPT produces nonsense. Sure, I expected that. But what portion of the posts are not nonsense? How can "ban it" be consistent with "its very difficult to curate?" | |
| Dec 9, 2022 at 23:01 | comment | added | GoodDeeds | @AnonymousPhysicist Perhaps not precisely, but you can find lot of examples (or try them out yourself) of instances where ChatGPT provides an answer that looks plausibly correct but is actually nonsense. For humans, both the process of coming up with and detecting such text would take a decent amount of effort, but with ChatGPT one can produce them with nearly no effort, and would make it very difficult to keep up with curation. So already as a matter of practicality it makes sense to ban it, since it gives bad faith users too much power. | |
| Dec 9, 2022 at 22:42 | comment | added | Anonymous Physicist | @Nij Where is that? | |
| Dec 9, 2022 at 7:10 | comment | added | Nij | It's a good thing we have that information and can make new rules based on it now. | |
| Dec 8, 2022 at 22:28 | history | answered | Anonymous Physicist | CC BY-SA 4.0 |