Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

8
  • 6
    To be fair, the strike was about how SO didn't let mods handle ChatGPT content, and that was resolved. So, this is a different case, though more severe in some aspects. Commented May 16, 2024 at 6:49
  • @ShadowWizardLoveZelda Was that really resolved? The moderators went back to work, but I've not seen any statistics about number of deleted or recognized AI generated content since then nor the list of heuristic criteria that are allowed to be used. I guess everyone can have an opinion of him/her own if the strike really was successfully resolved. Commented May 24, 2024 at 9:59
  • 4
    @NoData suspending the second top user of Stack Overflow due to indirect usage of GenAI (not sure even ChatGPT) is proof enough. If the company would have wanted to keep their initial approach, they would have intervened and let the user keep doing that, but they didn't, letting the site moderators handle it their way. And it worked. Commented May 24, 2024 at 10:59
  • @ShadowWizardLoveZelda Proof may be a too strong word but yes, it seems like an example of actions being taken. On the other hand I imagine that the second top user on SO at some point after getting not caught a thousand times had so many potential cases that he/she simply admitted the use of GenAI. Thise case might be exceptional and not the best for proving the effectivity of the policy in general. I remember people saying that there are huge backlogs of flags and that the current rules hold moderators back. Commented May 24, 2024 at 12:05
  • @NoDataDumpNoContribution You will not see the list of approved heuristics as it is kept private. See meta.stackexchange.com/q/391990 Commented May 29, 2024 at 18:32
  • @ResistanceIsFutile I understand but it's not ideal. How can I know if this list makes sense, is rather restrictive or too generous? I can't form an opinion so it simply comes down to how much trust I have in company and mods, which is debatable. And whenever I cannot know something I automatically get a bit suspicious. Company and mods may have kicked the can down the road and may not have fully solved the problem that was the cause for the strike originally but simply arranged themselves with some kind of good/bad compromise. To me it's not clear if the strike issues really were resolved. Commented May 30, 2024 at 6:28
  • @NoDataDumpNoContribution Well, I understand that you don't trust the company. If you don't trust the mods either, then that is the problem. But the heuristics project started because company thought moderators are not adequately moderating the AI content (removing too much), so you have two opposing sides working on something, so it should be balanced. Commented May 30, 2024 at 6:40
  • @ResistanceIsFutile Balancing can come out more on one side or the other. And I don't know much there so my instinct is to mostly trust what I can see for myself, which I think isn't a problem by itself. Maybe presenting more statistics would help there. Anyway, I just wanted to say that everyone can decide on their own if they think that the strike was successfully resolved. I think it might not have been because the company might have tilted the balance in their favor. Commented May 30, 2024 at 9:17