[HN Gopher] Stackoverflow is investing into baking GenAI
___________________________________________________________________
Stackoverflow is investing into baking GenAI
Author : rounakdatta
Score : 80 points
Date : 2023-06-20 14:41 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (stackoverflow.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (stackoverflow.co)
| theptip wrote:
| Embedding search in a chat UI over all the SO content (with valid
| citations) would be the obvious feature I'd build if I were them.
|
| "Me: How do I do X? SO: here are a few highly voted answers ...
| Me: not quite, what if to foobar is like this? SO: In that case
| this is probably the answer: ... Me: Upvote answer (giving RLHF
| to the system to help with future training)"
|
| ChatGPT is great at answering code questions but if you are on SO
| you want to engage with the community, upvote the answer, or
| comment etc.
| OldManRyan wrote:
| Me: Hey AI how do I do this using X?
|
| AI: Why would you ever want to do that using X? You should do Y.
|
| Me: Well I need to do it using X because of these reasons.
|
| AI: ...That's dumb. You should just do Y.
| nolok wrote:
| Use jquery
| sideshowb wrote:
| Closed as duplicate of "how do I do that using X" even though
| on close inspection that!=this
| brycewray wrote:
| That AI is definitely trained on past SO content.
| ulrikhansen54 wrote:
| Their traffic is rumoured to be down 25-30% after ChatGPT was
| released, so good to see that they are doing something to keep
| the community alive in the new era of GenAI.
| bhouston wrote:
| SimilarWeb shows that their traffic drop is real, roughly 20%
| in the last two months:
|
| https://www.similarweb.com/website/stackoverflow.com/#overvi...
| nolok wrote:
| I don't know about ChatGPT, but for me Phind [1] really lowered
| my SO usage
|
| [1] https://www.phind.com/
| waselighis wrote:
| It's far from perfect, but in my experience, it's much better
| than both ChatGPT and Bard. I've also used it to ask non-
| technical questions, and it often generates a good response,
| so not really just "for developers".
| chx wrote:
| It's ... interesting.
|
| I asked
|
| how do i remove diacritics from unicode characters https://ww
| w.phind.com/search?cache=bd2b33eb-9454-4d38-975e-1... and it
| answered with multiple Python code snippets with the second
| solution getting close to the real solution but is slow and
| incorrect.
|
| Now if I ask the question I actually want
|
| how do i remove diacritics from unicode characters with php h
| ttps://www.phind.com/search?cache=c29fe466-16cc-4795-94bf-0..
| . then you can see it misunderstanding the question: the
| first answer is the desirable output (I suspect it only works
| for latin letters tho) except for the iconv problems
| mentioned but the second is completely incorrect. The third
| answer is close but no cigar as it only works with Latin
| characters.
|
| The answer I wanted to see is using the ICU library to run
| the rules NFD; [:Nonspacing Mark:] Remove; NFC. as mentioned
| on https://unicode-
| org.github.io/icu/userguide/transforms/gener... and
| https://www.unicode.org/iuc/iuc22/a339.html and a million
| other places but I wanted to link only official Unicode
| documentation.
| gs17 wrote:
| I'm not getting great results. It seems to love to latch on
| to a keyword in the question and run with it (maybe the GPT-4
| version does better). I asked a question about async in Rust,
| it gave me a comparison between threads and async and then
| kept going in that direction instead of answering what I
| asked. I mentioned a specific crate as something I wanted an
| alternative to, and it told me a description of the crate.
| Rephrasing the question a few times eventually got a correct
| answer, but it's not much better than going straight to
| ChatGPT.
| 6DM wrote:
| I've tried Phind a few times, but my gripe with it, so far,
| is it gives me outdated examples that don't work because the
| API has changed. Is there some magic keywords I should be
| including to prevent that?
| nolok wrote:
| Not sure about that, it's been mostly good for me in the
| case I needed it
| 6DM wrote:
| Maybe my use case of dotnet core development is going to
| be different than for python devs.
| rounakdatta wrote:
| Make sure that you're logged in, and have turned on the
| GPT-4 toggle?
| 6DM wrote:
| I assume that by GPT-4, you're talking about the "Use
| Best Model" toggle right?
| rdslw wrote:
| Yep. they're in deeeep panic mode due to AI.
|
| They're currently sending, massive unsolicited e-mail campaign
| to all (sic!) stackoverflow users. Message they're sending
| below. Please find 6 places where they try to address AI
| directly and indirectly :)
|
| _Stack Overflow is investing heavily in enhancing the
| developer experience across our products, using AI and other
| technology, to get people to solutions faster.
|
| As part of that initiative, we've launched Stack Overflow Labs.
|
| Here is where we'll share our experiments, demos, insights, and
| news - across all Stack Overflow products. We plan to
| continually add to this site as we experiment and release new
| solutions. You can sign up to get previews and early access to
| features that will be available on stackoverflow.com.
|
| Our guiding principles for Stack Overflow Labs
|
| Find new ways to give technologists more time to create amazing
| things. Accuracy is fundamental. That comes from attributed,
| peer-reviewed sources that provide transparency. The coding
| field should be accessible to all, including beginners to
| advanced users. Humans should always be included in the
| application of any new technology._
| ulrikhansen54 wrote:
| Very interesting -- had not seen that. Indeed, I think they
| could do with a bit of a makeover. Their ad platform is also
| terrible, way worse than Twitter's, so it is both good and
| bad that they're feeling a bit of a pinch I suppose.
| imachine1980_ wrote:
| more than that the platform is the more aggressive in the
| worst way possible, or your ask so specific about weird
| behavior that nobody responds or they say this already bean
| asking even if not(because some mods don't read what they
| ban), they block conversation with hundreds of votes, they
| practically insult the post writer for "not knowing", i'm
| happy if they start changing the nefarious moderation
| scheme, im 100 % more likely of making the same question in
| reddit than in stackoverflow people are kind, because
| moderation encourage that, that would totally increase the
| use of their platform lots more than this.
| LordShredda wrote:
| 25% of that traffic was asking questions answered by a
| glorified markov chain. I dont think stackoverflow lost any
| valuable users or interaction unless they're looking for
| newbies with syntax errors to flood the place.
| jrockway wrote:
| > newbies with syntax errors to flood the place
|
| I think they are looking for that. As long as they read the
| ads, they don't care how good at programming they are. It's a
| "web property", not a programming contest ;)
| hanniabu wrote:
| Could also be due to VSC copilot
| satvikpendem wrote:
| The founders sold at a perfect time, getting that bag just
| before traffic dropped due to generative AI.
| weinzierl wrote:
| Can someone ELI5 for me what GenAI is? I've never heard of them
| and their website is just the usual content-free buzzword salad:
|
| _artificial intelligence_ - what else, sigh!
|
| _transformative_ - you bet
|
| _business AND consumer_ - so basically everyone, why tell at
| all?
|
| _various industries_ - everyone again
|
| _pioneering_ - yeah, what else
|
| _vertically integrated_ - sure, I was just waiting for that
|
| _AI solution_ - oh, who would have thought?
|
| _AI-powered_!- you are saying!
|
| I've literally not even finished the second sentence on the page
| and this rambling abomination goes on and on and on...
|
| EDIT
|
| For reference the first two sentences:
|
| _" GenAI, our mission is to harness the power of artificial
| intelligence to create transformative tools that benefit
| businesses and consumers across various industries. GenAI is a
| pioneering artificial intelligence company focused on developing
| a vertically integrated AI solutions business through its
| proprietary MAI Cloud(tm) database, with the development and
| commercialization of AI-powered tools and solutions for
| businesses and consumers across multiple industries."_
|
| EDIT
|
| After reading other comments I think GenAI is a generic term
| (like blockchain) referring to Generative AI. In my defense the
| OP is not enlightening in this regard at all, so I just googled
| the term and the company website of genai-solutions.com was the
| first result. Nothing in the OP says that Stackoverflow is
| working with this specific company, however, that was just my
| (likely erroneous) assumption.
| lamp987 wrote:
| that sounds like a scam
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| > business AND consumer
|
| At least for me, those two categories don't (strongly) include
| education or government.
| weinzierl wrote:
| Fair, but I doubt they'd refuse to sell those too.
| mattnewton wrote:
| It's an abbreviation for generative ai, which are models
| trained to synthesize novel things matching structures in the
| training data. Think GPT, stable diffusion, eleven labs.
| chx wrote:
| It's a fancy name for automated plagiarism.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I feel like GenAI has become the next "blockchain". Wall Street
| (or someone else!) is setting some weird expectation for every
| company to somehow say "we're doing something with GenAI."
| Doesn't matter what it is they're doing with it, they just have
| to say the magic word in a press release or blog post.
|
| Apparently, "we're using AI" is a better story than "we're making
| great products, regardless of the underlying tech."
| Mutlut wrote:
| I do believe that we will talk about the AI era in a 'changing
| the industry' way and not in a 'hot garbage we should have just
| ignored'.
|
| And we already see the effect and have not even reached any
| hill.
|
| Its for me the same as with renewable energie and EVs: We have
| not yet invested that much money into batteries as we could and
| all the problems we are facing will be gone sooner than later
| because there is no ceiling currently visible. Just not enough
| VC for it.
|
| Battery tech started to get much more funding 2022.
|
| AI will defintily change a lot and the progress is astonishing.
| mattnewton wrote:
| I feel like people learned not to trust their gut with
| blockchain when they saw a lot of people making a lot of money
| and noise for things they didn't use and didn't know why anyone
| would. But this feels different because I see "ordinary" people
| uploading their Lensa portraits and talking about how cool
| silly stories they made chatgpt write were. Things understood
| as interesting or valuable by everyday people that weren't
| feasible 2 years ago now are.
| im3w1l wrote:
| I'm thinking it's because stockholders don't want a Kodak.
| Spending some money on looking at how AI can be used in the
| company, it could almost be seen as a defensive move.
|
| Funny side note, I misremembered which company it was and my
| attempts at googling Canon case study brought up nothing
| relevant. Trying Chatgpt it said that Canon did fine, so I
| asked it wether there wasn't some company that did fail, and it
| reminded me it was Kodak.
| wilg wrote:
| I think a lot of people are having trouble distinguishing
| between the two highly-hyped technologies. So there's a lot of
| "fighting the last war".
|
| Generative AI, or AI in general, has actual use cases that
| people can immediately understand (and in fact use already on a
| daily basis). Not one crypto fan ever made a pitch for
| cryptocurrency that made any sense if you asked follow-up
| questions.
| [deleted]
| ladberg wrote:
| In my opinion it's significantly more meaningful than
| blockchain hype. Blockchain doesn't add any value whatsoever
| for 99% of the use-cases that companies were advertising it
| for, but AI can immediately and cheaply create output that
| previously would have been expensive, time-consuming, or
| impossible.
| dandellion wrote:
| To me it looks more like the dotcom era than blockchain.
| Obviously there's a lot of hype and much of it will be
| vaporware, but I think there's also some really good stuff
| that's here to stay. Might be hard to tell which is which if
| it turns into a bubble until it's over thought...
| theptip wrote:
| Yeah that's a good baseline. Though I think it's
| pessimistic; quite frankly AI is going to be far more
| transformative than the internet.
|
| Anyone who thinks this is like blockchain should spend 10
| hours coding with GPT-4, and then extrapolate those
| capabilities out a few years. It's already adding a huge
| amount of value and productivity gain for me, though you
| need to know what to use it for.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| Yeah this is more correct. There are already useful
| implementations of generative AI:
|
| * in/out painting with photo editing software
|
| * GitHub Copilot
|
| * voice synthesis
|
| * ChatGPT (not great for what a lot of people try to use it
| for, but I find it useful for brainstorming or as a
| conversational programming Copilot)
| plorkyeran wrote:
| Yeah, I think dotcom era is a much better comparison. There
| is a lot of actual innovation happening and real products
| being built, but there's also a lot of companies slapping
| .com onto their names and pretending they're part of the
| new wave, and a lot of exciting new companies which don't
| actually have a business model. I think a lot of the
| current AI hype is wildly overblown, but there's zero
| chance that this all goes nowhere and had no lasting
| effect.
| majormajor wrote:
| I like this comparison. A ton of dotcom-era stuff was "the
| same tech, applied to different industries" - that's
| actually common for a lot of cycles, by nature. And there
| are going to be winners and losers, but it's likely you
| have a lot of application-specific winners that emerge (vs
| JUST OpenAI/MS/whoever) as well as a fleet of also-rans.
|
| This also doesn't at all require ChatGPT to be the first
| step on a road to self-aware sentient AI or anything else
| like that - the tools being built today will already
| disrupt a lot of things enough to allow for new winners and
| losers.
| morelisp wrote:
| This style of AI doesn't generate value, it extracts value.
| You can deliver a 90% as good product for 10% of the cost.
| That's great for the person arbitraging the 90% savings, but
| worse for anyone actually using the service. In this regard
| it functions primarily as a wealth transfer mechanism, so it
| ends up like blockchains anyway.
| majormajor wrote:
| If you want to be reductive, you can say the same about
| delivering knowledge over the internet.
|
| You get "90%" of the value of the world's best library -
| access to information - but lose things like a well-
| organized professional scheme, expert humans to assist you
| with your queries, and the ability to fill up a table with
| a bunch of books and reference materials side by side vs
| what you can fit onto your screen at once.
|
| But you also add some new things - you don't have to
| travel, multiple people can use it at once, etc - that all
| basically could be thrown into the "10% the cost" bucket: a
| company doesn't have to spend to send researchers around,
| they don't have to wait, etc.
|
| And publishers and artists of course were convinced that
| the internet would be the death of their current business
| models, that they were just extractive tools, not creative,
| and bad for their world; and weren't exactly wrong.
|
| They're both just moving bits around and summarizing more
| than doing the original research to figure out atomic
| theory, say. But "10% the cost" - and especially "10% the
| time required" unlocks A LOT of ability to do more, fancier
| things. As does _bypassing gatekeeping requirements_ (pay
| to travel, pay to have marketing copy written, pay /have
| connections to get access to the right archives, "sponsor"
| an artist to create stuff personally for you...).
|
| I think ChatGPT is generally _bad_ as a creative agent (vs
| a carefully used tool) and is gonna result in the internet
| being full of even more low-value BS than before, but I
| think it 's inaccurate to say that it's not going to unlock
| anything new. It's just gonna look way different than
| today's internet.
| morelisp wrote:
| Paying an artist to make art is not "gatekeeping", what
| the fuck.
| majormajor wrote:
| It's sorta a two-sided thing.
|
| Is a world with Patreon more or less gate-kept from the
| perspective of "influencing things to your taste" than
| one where you had to be rich enough to sponsor a Mozart
| or such?
|
| Is a world where you can't afford to make your own
| compositions because you don't have the money to afford
| the tutelage or the free time to master every single step
| more or less gate-kept than one where you can play around
| and learn on free or cheap software tools?
|
| It'll be _different_ but there will still be artists -
| creation will be open to more people than ever before -
| and I also don 't expect that the power-law function of
| cultural products and taste will change, so there will
| still be big winners from those artists able to command
| $$$.
| morelisp wrote:
| It's not two-sided! That's just not what "gatekeeping"
| is! You're talking about like ten other things, none of
| which are gatekeeping.
| majormajor wrote:
| Sure, what are those ten other words, sub them in where
| you like. Maybe "barrier of cost of entry" for most of
| the ones beyond historical wealthy-person-patronage? I'm
| not too concerned with what specifically to call examples
| of how things will change.
|
| Overall I believe that this is certainly a _disruptive_ ,
| possibly revolutionary, information systems technology
| but I don't believe it's more uniquely _purely
| extractive_ than something like the internet or previous
| disruptive ones.
| grumpyprole wrote:
| It can certainly create cheap output, but it doesn't create
| correct output. AI is being used for many use cases where
| correct output should be the requirement (e.g. Quora
| answers). Blockchain resulted in a lot of fraud, AI is going
| to result in a lot of misinformation.
| xfz wrote:
| Yes, and also StackOverflow is massively impacted by ChatGPT.
| Many developers are already using the latter in place of SO.
| It makes sense for them to try and keep those developers on
| board.
| rg111 wrote:
| AI hype is like blockchain hype is a common HN meme which is
| gravely mistaken.
|
| Blockchain didn't have _any_ proper usecase that was better
| than what it was aiming to replace.
|
| But AI already has real use cases. And it is already solving
| problems. And I don't mean ChatGPT, Copilot, etc.
|
| I have myself developed and deployed AI models into real-world
| use that have been in production for years.
|
| Blockchain was only hype. AI has real uses + hype.
|
| AI will be a bubble that will burst, but even after that,
| people will improve it and use it more.
| avereveard wrote:
| GenAi can do useful work, blockchain can idk transfer wealth?
| have programs that work exactly like every other transactional
| program, but some of the bits are now on the user computer so
| that everyone is at risk of losing them? reimplementing banks
| from first principles, but with no guarantees, while speed
| running frauds?
|
| now, it's true that everyone is jumping on the bandwagon etc,
| but the two tech are foundamentally different in usefulness.
| ysavir wrote:
| It's not about the techs themselves, it's about how investors
| and shareholders push for the hot new thing to be included in
| the company, even when it's not relevant (or adversarial to)
| providing a great product.
| ryandrake wrote:
| That's where I was going with my comment. See this other
| commenter[1] who quoted StackOverflow's communications:
|
| > _Stack Overflow is investing heavily in enhancing the
| developer experience across our products, using AI and
| other technology, to get people to solutions faster._
|
| They could have simply said:
|
| > _Stack Overflow is investing heavily in enhancing the
| developer experience across our products to get people to
| solutions faster._
|
| And it would not have changed the meaning of the message at
| all, except that we would not have read the magic word.
|
| 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36405875
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| It's a marketing text, don't expect too much of it. Your
| simplified version retains the meaning of the original,
| because neither is actually saying anything. "investing
| heavily in enhancing the developer experience across our
| products to get people to solutions faster", if not
| immediately followed by a list of specific examples, is
| just manipulative bullshit - it _implies_ a lot, but
| doesn 't actually _say_ much.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Its different.
|
| But also its the same.
|
| Economically, generative AI is _massively_ more useful than
| blockchain algorithms, and its also a much wider field. Its
| actually producing useful content right now, in spite of being
| in a _very_ rough and janky state like its straight out of a
| rushed research lab.
|
| But its also getting the same slimey, scammy hype that crypo
| and blockchain got. The space is stuffed with grifters. You
| can't trust what anyone says about it.
| symbolicAGI wrote:
| The Stackoverflow research initiatives per generative AI are very
| good examples of what some enterprises can do to improve user-
| input text context on websites and applications.
|
| 1. Adapt user text to a standard format. 2. Correct spelling and
| grammar mistakes. 3. Detect inconsistencies during the input
| process.
| malfist wrote:
| Whatever happened with the moderator strike over the AI? This
| seems like a great way to cheapen the brand.
| mwint wrote:
| Still ongoing.
| fabian2k wrote:
| Take a look at the answers on this post if you want to know how
| their most recent genAI experiment went:
|
| https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/425162/we-are-seeki...
|
| In short, it was a complete disaster. They create a tool to
| provide formatting suggestions on your new questions by piping
| the entire question into ChatGPT (or one of the comparable
| services). The internal prompt was figured out within minutes.
| And there are plenty of examples of this tool messing up
| questions entirely. And even when it doesn't destroy the
| questions, it still edits far too much minor and irrelevant
| stuff.
|
| I don't understand how this experiment could make it this far,
| they actually put it into a live test on the site. So a part of
| the new users asking questions got this tool in this broken
| state. And the way this failed was entirely predictable when you
| just pipe content into genAI.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| I think this experiment would have gone over much better if SO
| leadership wasn't so disconnected from the actual users of the
| site, and had been willing to say "here's an early prototype,
| please red-team it and show us where it breaks so we can
| hopefully get it to a state where it's actually useful in a way
| that makes your jobs easier"
| lamontcg wrote:
| I found it useful to clean up a question I wrote recently. I
| had to do a few round trips through it, and did need to proof
| read and fix what it suggested, but nothing too major. The
| result was something that was much tighter than my usual aspy
| prose, and got positive responses and suggestions and didn't
| seem to trigger anyone being pissy.
| bhouston wrote:
| > The internal prompt was figured out within minutes.
|
| So what?
|
| > And there are plenty of examples of this tool messing up
| questions entirely. And even when it doesn't destroy the
| questions, it still edits far too much minor and irrelevant
| stuff.
|
| If it can usually help but sometimes doesn't, then this is just
| an optional suggestion which can be skipped. This seems like a
| decent design for rolling this out.
| fabian2k wrote:
| The users that are the most likely to benefit from this kind
| of tool are also the least likely to be able to judge the
| quality of the edits it produces. Especially if you're not a
| native English speaker you might not notice that it changed
| the meaning of the text in some way.
|
| It wasn't hard to trigger problems here, it isn't like this
| mostly works. And it also breaks code in a way that
| invalidates the question. With no visible trail of the
| original question being available.
| stabbles wrote:
| In a way SO is the perfect platform for human feedback in
| reinforcement learning
| nomilk wrote:
| True, feedback on stack overflow can be brutally thorough and
| exacting to an extreme that the general population (or a
| mechanical turk) would struggle to emulate; perfect feedback
| for a LLM.
| csjh wrote:
| Duplicate question closing will now be instant if your question
| has an embedding that's remotely close to another question
| ethbr0 wrote:
| It really is obscene how many useful answers I've found on
| threads that were subsequently closed as duplicate -- with a
| link to a question that's not even close to the same.
| coffeeshopgoth wrote:
| I was going to post this response, too. Yes, you can close it
| because it is duplicate, but god knows the huge range of how
| good people are at explaining something to people of various
| levels of understanding.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| After reviewing a few meta posts on it, much appears to
| boil down to there being poor SO UX options.
|
| I.e. there isn't a "closed for being homework" category
|
| Consequently, duplicate served as the go-to but
| inappropriate "there's something wrong with this, and I
| don't want to deal with it" button.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Can you provide a link to an example or two of that
| happening?
| ethbr0 wrote:
| As near as I can tell, SO prunes duplicate-tagged
| questions. I 404d on the first few examples I pulled.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Users with 10k reputation will be able to see them even
| though they're deleted. Can you post them anyway?
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Wait, what?!
|
| SO hides questions with answers... but still retains them
| and allows logged in users with enough karma to see them?
|
| That is insane.
| yomlica8 wrote:
| Or the original is like a decade old and the solutions don't
| even work anymore. And even if they did still work, maybe
| some one has come up with some new solutions in the last 10
| years and I'd like to hear about as well.
| NobodyNada wrote:
| They tried A/B testing the "question formatting assistant" on the
| production site a few days ago. The results were...not great, and
| they had to quickly shut off the experiment:
| https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/425162/we-are-seeki...
| skilled wrote:
| And before long it's going to be, "Let AI write an answer to a
| question and you only need to edit it!".
| dataengineer56 wrote:
| I'd rather it helped people to write coherent questions rather
| than the usual dumping of a few irrelevant lines of logs onto
| the page and asking "please help".
| agilob wrote:
| Do I need to ask the question or can I automate that too?
| easyThrowaway wrote:
| As someone already said in another thread somewhere, we
| should cut to the chase already and let ChatGPT click the ads
| on the page.
|
| Even better, we can further optimize the experience by
| simplifying all news websites, reddit, SO networks to just a
| few empty HTML pages with ads so the can be clicked by the
| AI. No need for content, agencies, editorial staff.
|
| I mean, sure, Facebook, Microsoft and Google would probably
| say that's against the TOS of their ad services, but after
| all it's not like they cared about TOSes when they used the
| same websites to train their models.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| You might be interested in AdNauseam: https://adnauseam.io/
|
| It's a uBlock Origin fork that behaves as described.
| Y_Y wrote:
| If you have to ask...
| armchairhacker wrote:
| > Dear members of the Stack Overflow community, I hope this
| question finds you well.
|
| > I am a novice in the world of JavaScript and, as part of my
| learning journey, I've undertaken the task of attempting to
| manipulate the Document Object Model (DOM). Specifically, my
| aim is to add a new div element dynamically to my webpage,
| utilizing the common programming language called JavaScript.
|
| > This snippet of code is my current attempt:
| var newDiv = document.createElement("div"); newDiv.id =
| "newDiv"; newDiv.innerHTML = "This is a new div.";
| document.body.appendChild(newDiv);
|
| > The logic behind the above code snippet is as follows:
|
| > - I create a new div element by invoking
| document.createElement("div") and assign it to the variable
| newDiv.
|
| > - I then assign an id to the newly created div by setting
| newDiv.id to "newDiv".
|
| > - To add content to the div, I set newDiv.innerHTML to "This
| is a new div."
|
| > - Lastly, I attempt to append the new div to the body of the
| document using document.body.appendChild(newDiv).
|
| > Nevertheless, the code does not seem to produce the "div" I
| was hoping for. Additionally, there are no errors displayed on
| the console. I have attempted to diagnose the issue myself but
| have failed, and I have exhausted all other online resources
|
| > Time is of the essence. Additionally, I would prefer this
| answer to be as concise and easy to understand as possible.
| Your guidance and assistance in this matter is very much
| appreciated.
|
| > Thanks in advance,
|
| > user4798145768
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| [closed]: needs details or clarity
|
| 0 comments
| graypegg wrote:
| I mean, that would be the "next step" wouldn't it? I'm less
| scared for the big stack exchange communities which have enough
| people to vote out junk, but for the little ones I'm not sure.
| supriyo-biswas wrote:
| SO could go on all in using the 100k context length of Anthropic
| Claude, feed in the documentation of a library or product, and
| have it generate questions and answers, and post them on Stack
| Overflow to fake activity now that everyone I know participates
| on it in a read-only fashion.
| rounakdatta wrote:
| Just like wealth redistribution and inequality, I'm seeing this
| migration of "programming discussion" moving from open forums
| like SO to closed systems (guarded silos of GH Copilot, ChatGPT,
| Phind and others). We are preferring to ask the nitpicks in their
| chatbox instead of as a public comment on Stackoverflow.
| lopkeny12ko wrote:
| Is this why ChatGPT answers are banned on SO? Because it would
| compete with their own upcoming business?
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| Really no. I'll quote myself replying to another HN comment:
|
| _> If you go to ChatGPT and just ask it, you'll get the
| equivalent of asking Reddit: a decent chance of someone writing
| you some fan-fiction, or providing plausible bullshit for the
| lulz.
|
| I disagree. A layman can't troll someone from the industry let
| alone a subject matter expert but ChatGPT can. It knows all the
| right shibboleths, appears to have the domain knowledge, then
| gets you in your weak spot: individual plausible facts that
| just aren't true. Reddit trolls generally troll "noobs" asking
| entry-level questions or other readers. It's like understanding
| why trolls like that exist on Reddit but not StackOverflow. And
| why SO has a hard ban on AI-generated answers: because the
| existing controls to defend against that kind of trash answer
| rely on sniff tests that ChatGPT passes handily.. until put to
| actual scrutiny._
| meowface wrote:
| Is there really an epidemic of troll answers? Not sure I've
| ever seen intentionally bad programming advice on reddit.
| (Unintentionally bad, sure.) Even 4chan of all places is rare
| in this regard, honestly, and in the cases where it does
| happen the answer is usually dripping with blatant sarcasm.
|
| I'd guess totally made-up answers will be way, way, _way_
| more common with LLMs compared to any human social network.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| There absolutely is an epidemic of troll answers on Reddit
| _but not on programming subs_ , presumably precisely
| because of the aforementioned reasons. The kind of person
| that knows the actual answer (or has sufficient background
| knowledge to BS a believable answer) is the kind of person
| that won't post a troll answer in a programming sub. The
| kind of person that will post a troll answer won't have the
| requisite background knowledge and will be immediately
| "outed" and downvoted on the more legitimate (not r/all)
| subs, and eventually be discouraged from trying.
|
| ChatGPT is immune to this organic feedback loop.
| balder1991 wrote:
| How would they know the answer was gotten from ChatGPT though?
| If I ask ChatGPT something, test it and confirm it's correct, I
| can answer it in a simple way.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| Actually, SO leadership recently pissed off their moderators by
| updating their moderation guidelines to _de facto_ allow
| Generative AI answers on the site:
|
| https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/389811/moderation-s...
|
| So it's the opposite, they decided to unban it just as they
| started selling the same thing.
| madsbuch wrote:
| As writing, all comments seems to be quite negative. I think this
| is awesome and definitely something that can unlock a lot for me.
|
| I problem I often encounter when using stack overflow is that
| questions are answered ina a very narrow way that doesn't really
| fit me. So I need to bounce between 3-4 answers that are related
| to get the right solution.
|
| I would guess this solution could do this for me, provided that I
| provide anough context is my problem prompt.
| nomilk wrote:
| The projects listed [1] seem a bit mundane at first, but I prefer
| that to the opposite, where companies shoehorn GPT into places
| where it just irritates users.
|
| [1] Title generation, Formatting assistant, Sentiment analysis,
| Identifying duplicate questions
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-20 23:03 UTC)