Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
I haven’t looked closely for it on AU Meta, but the general network-wide guideline is to not edit spam, so could you share where you were told editing spam is fine on AU?
@Rinzwind I fully agree with you that users want correct information. Also, I agree that mods need to be cautious when issuing suspensions and should Assume Good Intent unless evidence of bad intent is discovered. If all users prefixed GenAI answers that they posted with "This answer was partially/entirely generated using GenAI", then this would be less of an issue. What is an issue, however, is when users don't cite it and pretend they wrote it, and then go and post 10+ answers per hour that are ChatGPT generated to attempt to gain rep, and then mods are forbidden from suspending them
@Rinzwind With the caveat that I'm not a Canonical employee, if I made an OS, I'd far rather my hypothetical support site have correct information about my hypothetical OS over AI-generated "information" that has significant potential to look convincing but mislead users as it is wrong. See also the FAQ in the strike letter
Not totally sure, but it may be possible to request all your data from Stack Exchange, and just get what you'd like from that. However, I'm unsure as to if that would actually include Questions + Answers. I'm also not sure if that is something they'd do
@FranckDernoncourt Well... there are a ton of SO answers that get posted and are AI-generated. And... it would take a lot of reviewer + mod time to test them for correctness. It is way easier/faster to say "They are banned, and if we catch you (I can't share specifics there, but there are good tools we have to find them), then the mods can give you a suspension" (checking for AI-content is faster and more scalable than testing if it is correct).
