Timeline for User vandalized own question - roll back?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 15 at 19:45 | history | edited | Andrew Morton | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Typos.
|
| May 14 at 15:33 | comment | added | user1482432 | @BenVoigt There are probably many better examples of SE ignoring licenses, but I am no SE-expert. As an immortal timetraveller I am aware of all past, current and future tech. | |
| May 14 at 15:07 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | And for your "StackExchange has no respect for its license obligations" this was a far better example: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/271080/… | |
| May 14 at 15:04 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | @Gantendo: LLMs as implemented today may not be capable of attribution, but that is not a fundamental limitation of LLMs (It is very deeply embedded in the structure presently being used, there definitely is no quick fix. But we don't know how much work has been put into competing structures, or how close to maturity they could be.) | |
| May 8 at 20:11 | comment | added | user1482432 | Ah perhaps you were referring to meta.stackexchange.com/a/399630/1507004 ? LLMs and attribution are fundamentally incompatible, and they clearly have no idea what they are talking about. | |
| May 8 at 3:07 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | This might be a question for main meta - we don't really have the full details on implementation of these things yet. | |
| May 8 at 2:35 | comment | added | user1482432 | Note also that Stack Exchange has shown it has little to no respect for licenses. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333089/… And large AI companies have not asked for permission to use the content they've used to built the models. | |
| May 8 at 2:25 | comment | added | user1482432 |
they're promising attribution that is not a promise they can make, because of how LLMs work. I googled it and I was unable to find a source for the claim that they promised that. Do you happen to have a link? OpenAI did promise to give Stack Overflow attribution, but not the person who actually posted the content.
|
|
| May 7 at 11:13 | history | answered | Journeyman GeekMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |