Browse Comments — Clean (de-noised)

Frederic Lhoest you're right but we're humans training the AI by giving prompts and it's getting better day by day. Our prompts helping the AI systems to perform well. Now prompts are the source.

Stack-Overflow needs to be supported ! AI Models / LLMs are like Google. Still Stack-Overflow lets you Interact. Let Stack-Overflow Integrates its Plaform with AI. And let Stack-Overflow keeps it data Away from AI access.

AI won't replace curiosity or creativity, but it can reduce the friction between an idea and its exploration. When researchers can test more hypotheses and explore more unconventional paths, breakthroughs that once seemed out of reach may become possible.

AI can generate errors or security flaws, and iterate to solve a complex problem, generating more errors, without adequate understanding from the developer. SO operates based on real-world experience, so they shouldn't disappear; their combination is key to success.

Frigtening and quite obvious AI Eyeopener(s)... ✅️ 😟

This looks transient to me .

Relying too much on AI gonna backfire job seekers only, yea once you get the job it feels good that AI gets your task done easily, but what if companies start adopting Face to face interviews? The more you rely on AI the more companies will prefer using AI over living humans.

Srishtee Dureja The cognitive dependency argument is the one I take most seriously in this entire debate. But here's where I'd push back slightly — the same critique was made about books, calculators, and search engines. Each time, the people who learned to use the tool well pulled further ahead. The ones who avoided it didn't preserve their edge. They just fell behind differently. AI is the same test, just at a higher stakes level.

The only relevant question also here is, is it auditable, reproducable and hallucination free. If not then please, please come back when it does

Nejdet Çağdaş Y. honestly, this might be the most underrated reason in the entire thread. Stack Overflow had a culture problem long before it had a traffic problem. AI didn't just answer faster — it answered without making you feel stupid for asking.

Judith Nathanail That's a sharp observation. SO was great at cataloguing known breaks. But new errors in new frameworks, written with AI-generated code? Those won't have SO threads. They'll barely have documentation. That's where the gap gets real.

Jhomara Luzuriaga exactly right. The danger isn't AI generating errors — it's developers shipping those errors without understanding why. SO forced you to read, understand, and verify. AI skips that step unless you deliberately don't let it.

Aditya Phutane exactly. The interview room doesn't care what your AI said. That gap will show.

This is a great reminder that nutrition isn’t just about ingredients—it’s about bioavailability. Preparation method fundamentally changes how the body accesses nutrients.

Meriç Sebuktekin comfortable decline. Finish that sentence — it's worth saying out loud.

Karthikkeyan Vijayan SO integrating AI is the right move. Blocking AI access to their data though — that ship may have already sailed.

Frederic Lhoest That's the question nobody wants to answer. AI trained on human knowledge. Humans stop generating it publicly. Then what?

Only use AI as a tutor and companion not to do all tasks though

Bringing multiple tools into one space can improve productivity. It helps reduce switching time and keeps work more focused.

We will all regret that.