3
$\begingroup$

I asked for a policy regarding AI-use in the site, but nobody is saying anything. I guess we don't have a trouble, so nobody wonders.

I generated a question title using GPT-4 and posted it, as we have no policy.

We have 1.6 questions/day in the site, wich is a low number of questions.

I have free time in my job in administration and I can post 1 daily question generated by this system to reach 2.5 questions/day if this is not a problem.

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

I think that is a problem. We don't want a ChatGPT site. See here: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/421831/temporary-policy-chatgpt-is-banned

I think we should adopt the same policy here on ES SE.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, I won't post more. I asked the bot to generate a not too much broad question, but the questions it generate are very broad. $\endgroup$
    – user28185
    Commented Apr 6, 2023 at 6:42
3
$\begingroup$

There's long been a recommendation on SE sites that users only post questions that they genuinely want the answer to. See https://stackexchange.com/tour:

Ask about...

Real problems or questions that you’ve encountered

Using LLMs to generate questions purely for the purpose of increasing the amount of content on this site doesn't pass this test. I also suspect that users would be less likely to answer a question that they felt was generated by an AI because it gives a weaker sense that they're helping someone. That might increase the Q count on the site, but it would worsen the Q:A ratio.

A potential legitimate use case is where someone uses an LLM to rephrase a genuine question, particularly when English isn't their first language. A blanket ban on the use of LLMs as a tool might be an exclusionary policy, given that this currently doesn't appear to be a problem on ES.SE.

A more nuanced policy would be based around banning problem uses (e.g., content farming) and/or permitting narrow uses (e.g., improving your own question). It would be harder to police, but more equitable.

$\endgroup$
0

You must log in to answer this question.