Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!
Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.
Comments on Should we allow answers generated by ChatGPT?
Parent
Should we allow answers generated by ChatGPT?
We got our first (mostly) ChatGPT answer in our community. Also, a question includes an adapted ChatGPT code that does not seem to do the job.
StackOverflow has already banned ChatGPT answers and I am wondering how we should proceed in this case.
From my perspective, we should also ban ChatGPT answers because it is very likely to include subtle errors and lack any citations (ChatGPT actually had the option to answer the question of sources, but this was removed).
What do you think? Should we allow answers generated by ChatGPT?
I want to let you know that today we (Codidact team) posted our default Gen-AI policy. As far as this community is conc …
1y ago
After some more experience from this bot over a couple of months, I would say that we should ban it simply because: T …
2y ago
"Subtle errors" understates the problem. For example, I asked it about uses for std::equalto, and it tragicomically gave …
2y ago
The expectation for all posts is, that a post is always understood as the own work of the poster, who has the copyright …
2y ago
Now that we've had a few of these answers, I really don't like them. It seems there are three separate problems with …
2y ago
It is a relevant but not decisive point whether ChatGPT can produce citations to back up its output (and whether the cit …
1y ago
My oppion is that they should NOT be allowed if they are not checked by a human for correctness and/or 100% copy pasted …
2y ago
Good question, but solid ‘meh’ on the issue. I don't think a preemptive ban is warranted. It's not as if we're being flo …
2y ago
This may be a bit out of left-field, but I don't see anybody else taking the approach. Let's face it, ChatGPT and A …
2y ago
Post
I want to let you know that today we (Codidact team) posted our default Gen-AI policy. As far as this community is concerned I think it's consistent with what you're already doing and nothing surprising, but I want to make sure folks are aware.
What we posted is not a deviation from what we were all already doing across the network, but we hadn't made it clear before and the question came up, so we wanted to articulate it. We based it on principles that were already part of our network's expectations:
-
Presenting work as your own that you did not create is plagiarism.
-
When using another's work, make it clear that it's not your own work (such as through quote formatting) and attribute it.
-
Don't violate others' copyrights or licenses.
And we based it on one additional factor: the quality of generative-AI content, out of the box, is poor. It's the antithesis of the high-quality, peer-reviewed information we're all here for.
Most posts that use generative AI violate at least one of the existing policies. It's possible for a post to use gen-AI with disclosure and attribution, or for an author to use AI output as a starting point and then refine it so that the result is original or quotes appropriately and isn't just a dump of AI output. Each community on our network is free to decide whether this is ok. You're free to ban, restrict, or allow posts that include gen-AI output. We will support our communities and moderators whatever you decide.
This isn't, strictly speaking, an answer to your question; the Software Development community, not the Codidact team, gets to decide what this community's policy is. I just wanted to supply information that might be part of your deliberations, and I didn't want today's post to raise any concerns here. If anyone has any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks.
0 comment threads