Timeline for answer to Avoid using ChatGPT or other AI-powered solutions to generate answers to questions on Software Engineering by Doc Brown
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 20, 2023 at 6:07 | history | edited | Doc Brown | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
"questions" included in #1
|
| Dec 23, 2022 at 16:09 | comment | added | Doc Brown | @ThomasOwens: absolutely. Furthermore, I added some results from a new experiment. And I hope it is ok in this case that I posted some literal output from ChatGPT here. | |
| Dec 23, 2022 at 16:08 | history | edited | Doc Brown | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1845 characters in body
|
| Dec 23, 2022 at 13:40 | comment | added | Thomas Owens Mod | So far, I've been most impressed with the copyediting, translation, and formatting aspects of ChatGPT. Especially the more esoteric ones, like converting text into poetry or song. But fixing grammar, spelling, and improving the voice seem to be very strong capabiliites right now. | |
| Dec 23, 2022 at 13:01 | comment | added | Doc Brown | @ThomasOwens: disclosure, before I posted this, I asked ChatGPT to improve my wording in parts of this answer, it seemed to worked well. | |
| Dec 23, 2022 at 11:02 | comment | added | Thomas Owens Mod | Both are valid. #1 may require attribution - that's a global SE policy to require attribution, although performing copyediting is different than contrbuting content, so perhaps attribution isn't necessary since we don't need to provide attribution to Grammerly. #2 is a bit riskier since some information coming out of systems like OpenGPT is wrong but looks plausible and some people may not tell the difference. But as the systems improve, it may drastically improve and offer benefits over traditional search engines. | |
| Dec 23, 2022 at 9:47 | history | edited | Doc Brown | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 125 characters in body
|
| Dec 23, 2022 at 9:41 | history | answered | Doc Brown | CC BY-SA 4.0 |