Timeline for answer to AI-generated Answers experiment on Stack Exchange sites that volunteered to participate by Joe W
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 6, 2025 at 14:55 | history | edited | Joe W | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 145 characters in body
|
| Feb 6, 2025 at 5:42 | comment | added | iBug says Reinstate Monica | I would rather we not get lost in this kind of details. The entire genAI proposal is sufficiently stupid beyond any possible salvage point. | |
| Feb 5, 2025 at 16:02 | comment | added | Joe W | @ꓢPArcheon And when people do leave comments explaining votes they get ripped into by people that don't like the reasoning. | |
| Feb 5, 2025 at 15:45 | comment | added | SPArcheon | @goldilocks While I generally agree that the network has quite the tendency to assume no one will vote on whim but then claim they are enlisted to whenever someone post about uncommented votes... at least downvotes have a price on the users (for answers at least) | |
| Feb 5, 2025 at 14:06 | comment | added | Starship | @KevinB Association bonus, not attribution bonus. | |
| Feb 4, 2025 at 23:32 | comment | added | user400654 | @goldilocks currently, the attribution bonus isn't enough to cast downvotes. fyi. Unless rasberry pi has a specific lower threshold? doesn't seem to... so the avg user couldn't indicate a post isn't useful anyway. | |
| Feb 4, 2025 at 23:09 | comment | added | Joe W | @goldilocks What is your problem here? This answer is addressing the new AI answer feature and not anything else that you can currently do based on your reputation. I am simply stating that not accounting for the association bonus in this feature is something that needs to be addressed. I am not making any comments on the ability to vote on answers which is something low rep users need to do in order to vote on answers to their questions. You don't need to discuss your opinions on reputation requirements for voting on this answer. | |
| Feb 4, 2025 at 23:07 | comment | added | goldilocks | So it is fine if I head over to whatever.SE and just randomly up and down vote things, but if I take the time to evaluate a non-public AI answer to decide if it is or is not acceptable, then that is going to ruin everything? | |
| Feb 4, 2025 at 23:02 | comment | added | Joe W | @goldilocks Again, I consider being able to approve bad content on the site much worse then being able to vote on bad content on the site. I don't see any issue with a user that just has the associating bonus up/down voting on answers but I do see a problem with them approving AI answers. Someone with thousands of rep from a couple of good questions but has bad knowledge can vote on all the answers they want as well. Rep will never prevent all actions but for approving ai answers it should be higher. | |
| Feb 4, 2025 at 23:00 | comment | added | goldilocks | "I can vote on suggestions on Raspberry PI even though I have yet to do anything on the site other than join and talk in chat" -> As you are I am sure already 100% fully aware, this is just not true. You can head over to Rpi SE right now and, since you will get the 100 point association bonus, start up or down voting questions and answers and anything else with a plus or minus icon on it willy nilly -- you don't even have to bother reading them if that is what you want to do. So again, there is nothing new here in that sense. | |
| Feb 4, 2025 at 22:55 | comment | added | goldilocks | "People are always going to upvote bad answers but it is more important to stop them from getting posted in the first place" -> Setting aside the AI issue how is it we are to do that? Make everyone have to have their answer similarly reviewed before they are seen publicly? I think we should stick with what we have, whereby if you think you have an answer you can post it, and other users will up/down vote that to indicate what they think of it. There's nothing here which changes that. The difference is that some AI answers won't even get the chance if they are pre-emptively rejected. | |
| Feb 4, 2025 at 22:44 | comment | added | Joe W | @goldilocks I disagree that voting on an answer has more significance then approving an AI answer. I think that approving the AI has has more significance and impact. People are always going to upvote bad answers but it is more important to stop them from getting posted in the first place | |
| Feb 4, 2025 at 22:28 | comment | added | goldilocks | "As it currently stands, a user can join a site with this feature enabled and mark suggestions as correct even if they have limited interaction with that site." -> True, but ever since whenever they have been allowed to do exactly the same thing to up/down vote answers and questions (which has much more significance, since approving an AI answer as "correct" simply means it can now be up or down voted publicly). At this point in history, I do not think the association bonus (however right or wrong headed) has proven to be a serious cross-site problem, so why would it suddenly be so? | |
| Feb 4, 2025 at 22:22 | comment | added | Joe W | @Berthold That explains why I don’t see it on the UX site. | |
| Feb 4, 2025 at 22:19 | comment | added | Berthold StaffMod | @JoeW Also see my response above. | |
| Feb 4, 2025 at 20:53 | comment | added | Joe W | @Starship I wanted to be more explicit that the association bonus was the issue rather then the rep total being low. Even if it is minor I do think there is a difference between having 51 rep from posting a question/answer and getting upvotes and having 101 rep because you signed up and have 200+ rep on another site. | |
| Feb 4, 2025 at 20:34 | comment | added | Starship | Basically what I already said in my answer | |
| Feb 4, 2025 at 19:11 | history | answered | Joe W | CC BY-SA 4.0 |