Post History

The expectation for *all* posts is, that a post is always understood as the own work of the poster, who has the copyright and responsibility for it and offers it to the site according to the site's conditions regarding editing etc.

**What we should ban**, therefore, is adding of verbatim ChatGPT responses that are marked as such.  Such answers would violate the aforementioned expectations:

* Responsibility: Someone has to be responsible for the answer.  If the answer is just verbatim ChatGPT output marked as such, the poster does obviously not take responsibility for the text.

* Editability: If the output is marked as verbatim ChatGPT output, this would be a barrier for editing this - you don't edit citations, do you?

Note that I did not mention the quality aspect as argument: People can give bad/wrong answers even without help from ChatGPT :-)

**What we should not ban** is, that someone creates an answer with the support of ChatGPT, that is, using information from ChatGPT output: We in general can not limit where posters get their information from - we would not even know, if they don't tell.  They may also have information from other non-reliable resources.

What if someone takes verbatim output from ChatGPT without classifying it as such?  We may discourage or even ban it (I am not sure about possible copyright issues, for example), but it could be hard to prove anyway.  However, again, the aforementioned expectation for all posts would simply apply - and then this is not a special case from Codidact's perspective.

**The site should also not include ChatGPT generated output automatically**: Like, putting a section at the bottom of each page like "see what ChatGPT says about it".  I don't like this idea for the following reasons:

* Users can simply do this themselves if they want it.

* The output is non-deterministic: Asking the same question repeatedly may deliver different answers each time.  Which answer would we put to the site?  Would this be stored, or would it be dynamically re-created?

* Alternatives to ChatGPT exist / will pop up.  Should we add all those over time?  This would really clutter the pages from user perspective.

What may be OK could be some box somewhere on our pages that directs users to other sources of information *in general* (that is, not just ChatGPT, maybe ChatGPT not even part of this list), like "other places you can look for answers".  May sound a bit strange to re-direct people this way, given that we are hoping for the community to grow, but such an approach may also have the effect of people using Codidact as a starting point.