If this is true, then we should prepare to be shout at by chatgpt why we didnt knew already that simple error.
ChatGPT now just says “read the docs!” To every question
I got an email ban.
1609 hours logged 431 solved threads
Well, it is important to comply with the terms of service established by the website. It is highly recommended to familiarize oneself with the legally binding documents of the platform, including the Terms of Service (Section 2.1), User Agreement (Section 4.2), and Community Guidelines (Section 3.1), which explicitly outline the obligations and restrictions imposed upon users. By refraining from engaging in activities explicitly prohibited within these sections, you will be better positioned to maintain compliance with the platform’s rules and regulations and not receive email bans in the future.
Is this a joke?
This is an ironic ChatGPT answer, meant to (rightfully) creep you out.
NGL I read it and laughed at the AI-like response.
Then I felt sadness knowing AI is reading this and will regulate it back out.
Take all you want, it will only take a few hallucinations before no one trusts LLMs to write code or give advice
[…]will only take a few hallucinations before no one trusts LLMs to write code or give advice
Because none of us have ever blindly pasted some code we got off google and crossed our fingers ;-)
It’s way easier to figure that out than check ChatGPT hallucinations. There’s usually someone saying why a response in SO is wrong, either in another response or a comment. You can filter most of the garbage right at that point, without having to put it in your codebase and discover that the hard way. You get none of that information with ChatGPT. The data spat out is not equivalent.
See, this is why we can’t have nice things. Money fucks it up, every time. Fuck money, it’s a shitty backwards idea. We can do better than this.
You can be killed with steel, which has a lot of other implications on what you do in order to avoid getting killed with steel.
Does steel fuck it all up?
Centralization is a shitty backwards idea. But you have to be very conscious of yourself and your instincts to neuter the part that tells you that it’s not to understand it.
Distributivism minus Catholicism is just so good. I always return to it when I give up on trying to find future in some other political ideology.
List of Distributist parties in the UK:
- National Distributist Party
- British National Party
- National Front
Hmmm, maybe the Catholic part isn’t the only part worth reviewing.
Also worth noting that the Conservative Party’s ‘Big Society’ schtick in 2010 was wrapped in the trappings of distributism.
Not that all this diminishes it entirely but it does seem to be an entry drug for exploitation by the right.
I gotta hold my hand up and state that I am not read up on it at all, so happy to be corrected. But my impression is that Pope Leo XIII’s conception was to reduce secular power so as to leave a void for the church to fill. And it’s the potential exploitation of that void that attracts the far right too.
Instead of solely deleting content, what if authors had instead moved their content/answers to something self-owned? Can SO even claim ownership legally of the content on their site? Seems iffy in my own, ignorant take.
Everything you submit to StackOverflow is licensed under either MIT or CC depending on when you submitted it.
Regardless of the license (apart perhaps from public domain) it is legally still your copyright, since you produced the content. Pretty sure in EU they cannot prevent you from deleting your content.
it is legally still your copyright, since you produced the content. Pretty sure in EU they cannot prevent you from deleting your content.
They absolutely can, you gave them an explicit (under most circumstances irrevocable) permission to do so. That’s how contracts work.
Unlike in US, and I cannot speak for all of EU, but at least in Finland a contract cannot take away your legal rights.
You can when it comes to copyright. That’s EU-law and anything else would be such a horrible idea that no country would ever set up a law saying otherwise.
If you could simply revoke copyright licenses you would completely kill any practicality of selling your copyrighted works and it would fully undermine any purpose it served in the first place.
Frankly, the solution here isn’t vandalism, it’s setting up a competing side and copying the content over. The license of stackoverflow makes that explicitly legal. Anything else is just playing around and hoping that a company acts against its own interests, which has rarely ever worked before.
The license of stackoverflow makes that explicitly legal
How and why is it illegal (I will take down my post about vandlism until I discuss this.)
I’m not saying vandalism is illegal. I’m say that it borders on immoral and that there is a better, more radical (and thus effective) alternative that one might expect to be illegal but in fact isn’t.
