• Guru_Insights99@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months 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
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

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

  • Bell@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 months 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
      ·
      6 months 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
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months 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.

        • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Your thinking is extremely black and white. Many many, probably most actually, second guess chat bot responses.

      • Seasm0ke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Split segment of data without pii to staging database, test pasted script, completely rewrite script over the next three hours.

  • kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months 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.

    • sirboozebum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months 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.

  • neclimdul@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Oh I didn’t consider deleting my answers. Thanks for the good idea Barbra StackOverflow.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I think the reason for those bans is that they don’t want you rebelling and are showing that they don’t need you personally, thus ban.

        Of course it’s all retained.

  • merthyr1831@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months 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.

  • doodledup@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    It will not make a difference. The internet is free and open by design. You can always scrape the internet any time. A partnership will do nothing but make it a little bit more convenient for them.

  • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Instead of solely deleting content, what if authors had instead moved their content/answers to something self-owned? Can SO even claim ownership legally of the content on their site? Seems iffy in my own, ignorant take.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Everything you submit to StackOverflow is licensed under either MIT or CC depending on when you submitted it.

      • aname@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Regardless of the license (apart perhaps from public domain) it is legally still your copyright, since you produced the content. Pretty sure in EU they cannot prevent you from deleting your content.

        • Fiona@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          it is legally still your copyright, since you produced the content. Pretty sure in EU they cannot prevent you from deleting your content.

          They absolutely can, you gave them an explicit (under most circumstances irrevocable) permission to do so. That’s how contracts work.

          • aname@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Unlike in US, and I cannot speak for all of EU, but at least in Finland a contract cannot take away your legal rights.

            • Fiona@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              You can when it comes to copyright. That’s EU-law and anything else would be such a horrible idea that no country would ever set up a law saying otherwise.

              If you could simply revoke copyright licenses you would completely kill any practicality of selling your copyrighted works and it would fully undermine any purpose it served in the first place.

    • matjoeman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      They can. It’s in the TOS when you make your account. They own everything you post to the site.

      • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Well I suppose in that case, protesting via removal is fine IMO. I think the constructive, next-step would be to create a site where you, the user, own what you post. Does Reddit claim ownership over posts? I wonder what lemmy’s “policies” are and if this would be a good grounds (here) to start building something better than what SO was doing.

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          A SO alternative cannot exist if a user who posted an answer owns it. That defeats the purpose of sharing your knowledge and answering questions as it would mean the person asking the question cannot use your answer.

          • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            A SO alternative cannot exist if a user who posted an answer owns it. That defeats the purpose of sharing your knowledge and answering questions as it would mean the person asking the question cannot use your answer.

            Couldn’t these owners dictate how their creations are used? If you don’t own it, you don’t even get a say.

            • Aux@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              That’s the point of platforms like SO - you give away your knowledge, for free, for everyone, for any use case. If a user can restrict the use of their answers, then it makes no sense for SO to exist. It’s like donating food to a food bank and saying that your food should only go to white people and not black people.

  • bitchkat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Maybe we should replace Stack Overflow with another site where experts can exchange information? We can call it “Experts Exchange”.

  • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months 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.

  • filister@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    While at the same time they forbid AI generated answers on their website, oh the turntables.

    • sabin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      "the AI isn’t good enough to answer questions yet, it needs more training "

      “YOU HYPOCRITE!! If the A.I is too bad to use then why are you training it!”

      Clean the damn mold out of your brain.

  • tearsintherain@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Reddit/Stack/AI are the latest examples of an economic system where a few people monetize and get wealthy using the output of the very many.