Timeline for answer to AI-generated Answers experiment on Stack Exchange sites that volunteered to participate by John Omielan
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 7, 2025 at 17:37 | history | edited | John Omielan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Add parts of Berthold's and Starship's comments at the end, emphasize the negative broader community feedback, and make a few other changes.
|
| Feb 7, 2025 at 9:47 | comment | added | SPArcheon | @ResistanceIsFutile [cont] I reserve my final thoughts on this for the end of the project, when we will finally see what "validated" assumption the company will follow: the one of the mods of webapps that stepped back or the one from the mods of other sites that even came here on meta quite... vocally defending the experiment? Will the webapps mod concerns really have a role into the decision making or will the second phase be deemed a success anyway and the bot pushed to all sites in the network? Will the results from other sites be used to justify pushing it to SO without testing? | |
| Feb 7, 2025 at 9:44 | comment | added | SPArcheon | @ResistanceIsFutile saw that, and I also saw the company saying "This validates many of the assumptions that the company and the community had" there. Yet, while apparently while the site mods coming to the conclusion that the experiment didn't work "validated" their assumption... the experiment was still taken forward on other sites. [cont] | |
| Feb 7, 2025 at 9:14 | comment | added | Resistance Is Futile | @ꓢPArcheon Things are a bit more complicated webapps.meta.stackexchange.com/q/5281 | |
| Feb 5, 2025 at 15:38 | comment | added | SPArcheon | @Starship Sorry, probably poor writing on my side, you got me wrong. I meant the mods on the sites that joined the test. I HOPE that to join the test half+1 the mods of the site had to agree. Can't edit it but read that line as "Which is obviously a skewed process since (hopefully) at least half+1 of said participating site mods already demonstrated their oath to the Holy AI of Caerbannog by agreeing to join in the first place." | |
| Feb 5, 2025 at 15:37 | comment | added | Starship | @ꓢPArcheon I'm all for calling out the company, but let's not pretend all or even most mods are pro-AI. Look at the strike letter for a long list of such mods. | |
| Feb 5, 2025 at 15:33 | comment | added | SPArcheon | @Starship consider this. General users weren't even asked if they wanted to join the test, they deemed asking to the mods good enough. Therefore, I assume that any request would have to come from the mods. Which is obviously a skewed process since those mods already demonstrated their oath to the Holy AI of Caerbannog by joining in the first place. | |
| Feb 5, 2025 at 11:47 | comment | added | ColleenV | @Berthold So am I to understand from your comment that if an AI generated answer without attribution gets through the review process it will be a permanent fixture on the site even though the experiment fails? | |
| Feb 4, 2025 at 23:23 | comment | added | Starship | @Berthold Please be specific. Communal means what exactly? Mods agree? General users agree? How is this measured? Who gets to vote? What percent of a vote is enough to turn it off? How would one start just a request to remove this? Details please. | |
| Feb 4, 2025 at 22:24 | comment | added | John Omielan | @Berthold Thank you for the clarifications. Please consider adding at least some of those details to your question. | |
| Feb 4, 2025 at 22:15 | comment | added | Berthold StaffMod | The second "we" is communal, since feedback from the test site communities and the broader community is a big factor. There is an "off switch" (so to speak) for the experiment which would remove all private answers. Public answers would remain, but could be cleaned up in a variety of ways, depending on the situation. | |
| Feb 4, 2025 at 19:17 | history | edited | John Omielan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Note there are two "we"'s in the quoted text, so it seems the second one is likely meant to be the same as the first one., i.e., the company. Also, add a few other details and make several other changes.
|
| Feb 4, 2025 at 19:02 | history | answered | John Omielan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |