Timeline for answer to No, I do not believe this is the end by tkruse
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 26 at 9:04 | comment | added | jonrsharpe | "it would be plain dumb to try to create any textual content in this day and age without some AI support" - that's certainly an order in which words could be placed. | |
| Jan 25 at 11:36 | history | edited | tkruse | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 50 characters in body
|
| Jan 25 at 11:15 | history | edited | tkruse | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 902 characters in body
|
| Jan 22 at 16:27 | comment | added | zerocukor287 | My bad. This is even funnier, thanks for bringing it up | |
| Jan 22 at 16:24 | comment | added | Lundin | @zerocukor287 No they wanted to spew as much AI-generated crap as possible all over the place, while at the same time sell out the posts as AI training data. Yes those are mutually exclusive - nobody accused them for being rational. The reason why we didn't get as much AI trash as possible was that the moderators of SO went on strike. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/389811/… | |
| Jan 22 at 16:02 | comment | added | zerocukor287 | If you train a new AI model on AI generated text, then it will perform much worse. I think this is the company's reason behind forbidding it. About the community, I couldn't imagine worse thing nowadays than trying to find the small bug in the AI generated code. | |
| Jan 22 at 15:10 | history | edited | tkruse | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Jan 22 at 14:49 | history | answered | tkruse | CC BY-SA 4.0 |