Timeline for Our Partnership with OpenAI
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 10, 2024 at 3:50 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | @This_is_NOT_a_forum this I did, though its entirely plausible I got OverflowAI and OverflowAPI conflated | |
| May 10, 2024 at 0:47 | comment | added | This_is_NOT_a_forum | Re "StackOverflowAI API": There is OverflowAI and the press release uses "Stack Overflow’s OverflowAPI". Do you mean OverflowAPI? "Improve the performance of AI models & products" says "OverflowAPI is a subscription-based API service that provides continuous access to Stack Overflow’s public dataset to train and fine-tune large language models." | |
| May 9, 2024 at 20:20 | comment | added | Mithical | @S.L.Barthisoncodidact.com - This agreement is neither a major product change nor a policy change and so is not required to be announced first to mods. It would have been good if they had, though. | |
| May 9, 2024 at 6:26 | comment | added | Ramhound | In my opinion there was no way to message this announcement where individuals who have contributed many years to a community, would have taken it positively, since the announcement is primarily negative in if you have contributed to community significantly. A partnership with ChatGPT no matter how it was handled would be received negatively (as it should) because nothing about ChatGPT is positive | |
| May 7, 2024 at 23:15 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | SE never did go public. If it did, having a community representative on the board might be a good counter balance , and I suspect we could have made it happen collectively | |
| May 7, 2024 at 18:40 | comment | added | Gloweye | I'm not surprised they didn't bother thinking about how to message this to the community - it's very much a pattern of behavior at this point. SO should never have gone public. | |
| May 7, 2024 at 15:38 | history | edited | Sam Onela | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
update grammar, punctuation
|
| May 7, 2024 at 15:28 | history | edited | Journeyman Geek | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 75 characters in body
|
| May 7, 2024 at 15:26 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek | Well, its out now. I'm seeing a fair amount of confusion, so I'd say as much as a press release plan, having one to provide us with basic information, communicate with end users of various engagement levels and bidirectional handling of social media might be handy. Essentially, giving us the tools to help, and not needing us to. Maybe talking points, an FAQ.... | |
| May 7, 2024 at 15:18 | comment | added | S.L. Barth is on codidact.com | @Lundin To be fair, I can understand there's a dilemma. Negotiating a partnership is likely a business secret until the contracts are signed. Informing the moderators ahead of time would make this difficult. Not sure what is the right solution here.... | |
| May 7, 2024 at 15:12 | comment | added | Lundin | @S.L.Barthisoncodidact.com Lots and lots of empty words, who would have guessed. Unless it hurts the company financially (and they understand that it this is the case), then nothing will change. There's no reasoning with them, everyone should have realized that at the 99th attempt. How the board can sit passive and watch their flagship product getting dragged in the dirt over and over again, I just don't understand. All other companies in the world tend to cherish their flagship product. | |
| May 7, 2024 at 15:02 | comment | added | S.L. Barth is on codidact.com | "the moderator teams were not given any prior notice of any of this" - this seems a violation of the agreement that was reached less than a year ago. | |
| May 7, 2024 at 14:58 | history | answered | Journeyman Geek | CC BY-SA 4.0 |