Return to Answer

So, to be very clear: The massive effort and hours the curators/flaggers and elected moderators spent together over the last 6 months very successfully stemming the ChatGPT copy-paste tide and shielding our** community’s users** from all that junk never in, any way shape or form, came anywhere close to actually resembling anything like a “witch hunt” or any other kind of malicious or hysterical misguided analogy that management might want to try to smear us with now.

So, to be very clear: The massive effort and hours the curators/flaggers and elected moderators spent together over the last 6 months very successfully stemming the ChatGPT copy-paste tide and shielding our community’s users from all that junk never in, any way shape or form, came anywhere close to actually resembling anything like a “witch hunt” or any other kind of malicious or hysterical misguided analogy that management might want to try to smear us with now.

I’m a Stack Overflow moderator coming here to give more details on what management has said that’s helped caused me to decide to join the strike, and to give details from my own personal experience handling several thousand of the warnings and suspensions we’ve done at Stack Overflow for ChatGPT-copy-paste abuse.

So, to be very clear: The massive effort and hours the curators/flaggers and elected moderators spent together over the last 6 months very successfully stemming the ChatGPT copy-paste tide and shielding our community’s users from all that junk never in, any way shape or form, came anywhere close to actually resembling anything like a “witch hunt” or any other kind of malicious or hysterical misguided analogy that management might want to try to smear us with now.

We’ve been very accurately identifying the ChatGPT posts with an extremely low number of false positives. And I say that as someone who handled a very very large number of the flags.

To anyone in management who claims the elected moderators have been getting it wrong for the last 6 months, with an unacceptably high rate of false positives, and who wants to challenge my personal assertions about how accurately I can identify the ChatGPT cases: I invite you to work together with me over several days looking at least some several dozens of ChatGPT flags as they come in.

Alternatively, rather than looking at new flags as they come in, I invite anyone to go together through the logs of my moderation activities, and examine some significantly-sized random sample at least of the thousands of ChatGPT flags I have handled.

I’m a Stack Overflow moderator coming here to give more details on what management has said that’s helped cause me to decide to join the strike, and to give details from my own personal experience handling several thousand of the warnings and suspensions we’ve done at Stack Overflow for ChatGPT copy-paste abuse.

So, to be very clear: The massive effort and hours the curators/flaggers and elected moderators spent together over the last 6 months very successfully stemming the ChatGPT copy-paste tide and shielding our** community’s users** from all that junk never in, any way shape or form, came anywhere close to actually resembling anything like a “witch hunt” or any other kind of malicious or hysterical misguided analogy that management might want to try to smear us with now.

We’ve been very accurately identifying the ChatGPT posts with an extremely low number of false positives. And I say that as someone who has handled a very very large number of the flags.

To anyone in management who claims the elected moderators have been getting it wrong for the last 6 months, with an unacceptably high rate of false positives, and who wants to challenge my personal assertions about how accurately I can identify the ChatGPT cases: I invite you to work together with me over several days looking at least several dozens of ChatGPT flags as they come in.

Alternatively, rather than looking at new flags as they come in, I invite anyone to go together through the logs of my moderation activities, and examine some significantly-sized random sampling of the thousands of ChatGPT flags I have handled.

And in cases where the flaggers had included scores from any detection tools in their flag comments, I even completely ignored whatever score information the flaggers provided — to the point that I would actually stop reading the flag comments at the point where they were providing score information, because I found no use at all for it.

And in cases where the flaggers had included scores from any detection tools in their flag comments, I even completely ignored whatever score information the flaggers provided — to the point that I would actually stop reading the flag comments at the point where they were providing score information, because I found no use at all for it.