6 ms·

I am thankful we have LLMs so we don't have to deal with SO. Ideally, as little as possible. SO can be a pretty toxic place filled with elitism and care for pro

I am thankful we have LLMs so we don't have to deal with SO. Ideally, as little as possible. SO can be a pretty toxic place filled with elitism and care for procedure over actually helping people, which is not totally unreasonable from their standpoint but it's definitely not what people are visiting the site for. Quite ironically, one of the major complaints I get is that LLMs output wrong answers here and there, ignoring that many of the answers on SO are also completely wrong or irrelevant to the core question being asked. And mind you, also outdated (I regularly have to click through the sorting to make sure answers are actually still relevant). If we could merge the two to get the best of both worlds, and have LLMs that know how to write well and are validated by humans on the site, that would be great. Maybe not great for the folks looking to accrue internet points but absolutely great for users.

tyingq 2y ago
That's great for now. It's not clear to me, though, where LLM's will get their training data from here forward without ingesting lots of LLM generated code and answers and eating it's own tail.
- cle 2y ago
  OpenAI and Microsoft get TONS of user-written code w/ quality feedback, OpenAI through ChatGPT and Microsoft through VS Code and Copilot.
  - prng2021 2y ago
    That's only now and in the near term future. If AI is actually successful, every year the amount of human written code will decrease. That's the whole point of this.
- BenFranklin100 2y ago
  Didn’t you get the memo? LLM’s either already are capable of or just a step away from being able to reason so no need for human generated training data in the future. Or at least that’s what 3/4 of HN commentators believe and all AI CEOs want you to believe.
  - squigglydonut 2y ago
    yea that's bullshit. They are capable of stealing intellectual property though.
- kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  They'll get it from human generated archives from before the singularity.
  - tyingq 2y ago
    Well, yes, but software doesn't hold still, so the answer for "How to do xyz in whatever-replaces-reactjs" might not be great.
jimjimjim 2y ago
What you see as elitism is mostly simple curating. You can't store everything because it makes retrieving value from the store that much more difficult. It's the same with wikipedia and other public content repositories. People cry elitism and gatekeeping but without curation you eventually end up with a haystack of mediocre looking for a needle.
- dleeftink 2y ago
  I agree in part, but why aren't other moderated outlets where users can ask technical questions given the same label? Reddit, Quora and HN are also curated, are content removals on these site taken as elitist? Even if these places are less heavily moderated, I have no trouble surfacing relevant answers using any search engine's in-site search. I am not talking about QA quality on any of these sites here, but the elitist stigma that has seemingly followed SO for so long. [0]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/262446/are-we-being-elitist-is-there-something-wrong-with-that https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/262446/are-we-being...
  - squigz 2y ago
    > why aren't other moderated outlets where users can ask technical questions given the same label The exact label aside for a moment, reddit and HN mods often face backlash for their actions. But beyond that, Wikipedia and SO stand out in this regard because of their transparency regarding the curation. Mostly, reddit curation happens in the background, without much explanation. SO and Wikipedia basically spell out their actions and reasoning. Another difference is that with reddit and HN, you have no real recourse. At least with Wikipedia (I'm not too familiar with SO policies in this regard) you can appeal decisions, open discussions about policies, etc. I have to agree with GP - people often mistake the 'bureaucracy' of sites like Wikipedia and SO as something unnecessary that the editors force on everyone, but the fact is, it's necessary to create and maintain a high-quality repository of information.
    - dleeftink 2y ago
      > SO and Wikipedia basically spell out their actions and reasoning You're able to appeal on SO as well. It's interesting to think about a situation where moderation decisions would be more in 'the background', as you say (like Reddit/HN), and whether this takes away from the perceived 'elitism' some moderation practices are accused of.
LordShredda 2y ago
Does it matter if stack overflow is toxic or not? You're there to ask a question and get an answer. If you ask wrong, you get corrected. Tough moderation makes search much faster and better for other askers. You're there to ask for help not make friends. They have to be polite, but not gentle
- lannisterstark 2y ago
  Yes it does. If I am belittled instead of people asking clarifying questions so I can learn, I'm much less likely to think better of said people or platform, or use it.
  - joquarky 2y ago
    This is what killed perl
IAmNotACellist 2y ago
>I am thankful we have LLMs so we don't have to deal with SO. Ideally, as little as possible. SO can be a pretty toxic place filled with elitism and care for procedure over actually helping people There needs to be a term for this. Perhaps "The Wikipedia Effect."
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

tyingq 2y ago

That's great for now. It's not clear to me, though, where LLM's will get their training data from here forward without ingesting lots of LLM generated code and answers and eating it's own tail.

cle 2y ago
OpenAI and Microsoft get TONS of user-written code w/ quality feedback, OpenAI through ChatGPT and Microsoft through VS Code and Copilot.
- prng2021 2y ago
  That's only now and in the near term future. If AI is actually successful, every year the amount of human written code will decrease. That's the whole point of this.
BenFranklin100 2y ago
Didn’t you get the memo? LLM’s either already are capable of or just a step away from being able to reason so no need for human generated training data in the future. Or at least that’s what 3/4 of HN commentators believe and all AI CEOs want you to believe.
- squigglydonut 2y ago
  yea that's bullshit. They are capable of stealing intellectual property though.
kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
They'll get it from human generated archives from before the singularity.
- tyingq 2y ago
  Well, yes, but software doesn't hold still, so the answer for "How to do xyz in whatever-replaces-reactjs" might not be great.

jimjimjim 2y ago

What you see as elitism is mostly simple curating. You can't store everything because it makes retrieving value from the store that much more difficult. It's the same with wikipedia and other public content repositories. People cry elitism and gatekeeping but without curation you eventually end up with a haystack of mediocre looking for a needle.

dleeftink 2y ago
I agree in part, but why aren't other moderated outlets where users can ask technical questions given the same label? Reddit, Quora and HN are also curated, are content removals on these site taken as elitist? Even if these places are less heavily moderated, I have no trouble surfacing relevant answers using any search engine's in-site search. I am not talking about QA quality on any of these sites here, but the elitist stigma that has seemingly followed SO for so long. [0]: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/262446/are-we-being-elitist-is-there-something-wrong-with-that https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/262446/are-we-being...
- squigz 2y ago
  > why aren't other moderated outlets where users can ask technical questions given the same label The exact label aside for a moment, reddit and HN mods often face backlash for their actions. But beyond that, Wikipedia and SO stand out in this regard because of their transparency regarding the curation. Mostly, reddit curation happens in the background, without much explanation. SO and Wikipedia basically spell out their actions and reasoning. Another difference is that with reddit and HN, you have no real recourse. At least with Wikipedia (I'm not too familiar with SO policies in this regard) you can appeal decisions, open discussions about policies, etc. I have to agree with GP - people often mistake the 'bureaucracy' of sites like Wikipedia and SO as something unnecessary that the editors force on everyone, but the fact is, it's necessary to create and maintain a high-quality repository of information.
  - dleeftink 2y ago
    > SO and Wikipedia basically spell out their actions and reasoning You're able to appeal on SO as well. It's interesting to think about a situation where moderation decisions would be more in 'the background', as you say (like Reddit/HN), and whether this takes away from the perceived 'elitism' some moderation practices are accused of.

LordShredda 2y ago

Does it matter if stack overflow is toxic or not? You're there to ask a question and get an answer. If you ask wrong, you get corrected. Tough moderation makes search much faster and better for other askers. You're there to ask for help not make friends. They have to be polite, but not gentle

lannisterstark 2y ago
Yes it does. If I am belittled instead of people asking clarifying questions so I can learn, I'm much less likely to think better of said people or platform, or use it.
- joquarky 2y ago
  This is what killed perl

IAmNotACellist 2y ago

>I am thankful we have LLMs so we don't have to deal with SO. Ideally, as little as possible. SO can be a pretty toxic place filled with elitism and care for procedure over actually helping people There needs to be a term for this. Perhaps "The Wikipedia Effect."

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]