Return to Answer

Whether or not a threshold of 97+% means the tool misses a lot of true positives is irrelevant. It makes no sense to forbid the use of a tool just because it misses a lot of true positives. Lateral flow tests (LFTs) for COVID-19 can miss 20-80% of true positive cases; that just means we can't (and don't) rely solely on LFTs. It doesn't mean we should ban LFTs.

Additionally, this metric ─ users who posted >2 answers in a given week, and were suspended within three weeks ─ seems suspiciously precise. Why is >2 answers the cutoff? Why is 1 week the period in which those answers were written, and why is 3 weeks the period in which they were suspended? It smells of cherry picking to me. How robust is this finding to changes in the metric?

Whether or not a threshold of 97+% means the tool misses a lot of true positives is irrelevant. It makes no sense to forbid the use of a tool just because it misses a lot of true positives. Lateral flow tests for COVID-19 can miss 20-80% of true positive cases; that just means we can't (and don't) rely solely on LFTs. It doesn't mean we should ban LFTs.

Additionally, this metric ─ users who posted >2 answers in a given week, and were suspended within three weeks ─ seems suspiciously precise. Why is >2 answers the cutoff? Why is 1 week the period in which those answers were written, and why is 3 weeks the period in which they were suspended? It smells of cherry-picking to me. How robust is this finding to changes in the metric?

Whether or not a threshold of 97+% means the tool misses a lot of true positives is irrelevant. It makes no sense to forbid the use of a tool just because it misses a lot of true positives. Lateral flow tests for COVID-19 can miss 20-80% of true positive cases; that just means we can't (and don't) rely solely on LFTs. It doesn't mean we should ban LFTs.

Additionally, this metric ─ users who posted >2 answers in a given week, and were suspended within three weeks ─ seems suspiciously precise. Why is >2 answers the cutoff? Why is 1 week the period in which those answers were written, and why is 3 weeks the period in which they were suspended? It smells of cherry-picking to me. How robust is this finding to changes in the metric?

Whether or not a threshold of 97+% means the tool misses a lot of true positives is irrelevant. It makes no sense to forbid the use of a tool just because it misses a lot of true positives. Lateral flow tests (LFTs) for COVID-19 can miss 20-80% of true positive cases; that just means we can't (and don't) rely solely on LFTs. It doesn't mean we should ban LFTs.

Additionally, this metric ─ users who posted >2 answers in a given week, and were suspended within three weeks ─ seems suspiciously precise. Why is >2 answers the cutoff? Why is 1 week the period in which those answers were written, and why is 3 weeks the period in which they were suspended? It smells of cherry picking to me. How robust is this finding to changes in the metric?

Even so, if you were right that there are only 70 to 100 AI answers being added to Stack Overflow per week, that would still be a bad thing and it would still be necessary to moderate them. If left on the site, those answers will accumulate over time, getting upvotes from people who don't know better (because they resemble high-quality answers), and Stack Exchange, Inc. has clearly recognised the harm that would be caused by leaving these answers up on the site.

So even if all of your analysis was correct ─ and to be clear, it isn't ─ but even if it was, it still wouldn't logically support the new policy of de facto allowing AI plagiarism.