@NickCox The Third Temptation by Denis Williams. Good, but 'experimental' in the blurb should've warned me it wouldn't be easy reading - especially not punctuated by frequent naps and hot toddies.
@StephanKolassa Well, I did carry out quite a thorough purge of spam profiles over the Xmas holiday; partly because I was nervous about LLMs, & partly because I was poorly & couldn't concentrate on my book. That may have inflated the 2024 figures a bit.
We typically get from half a dozen to a dozen profiles like this created every day. It's rare to see any subsequent activity at all on the accounts - once the profile's up the spammer's job is done.
Super User got hit by another batch of spammers creating profiles. They've got accounts on other sites from what I've heard from other mods and from the comments here.
Last time it was streaming. Now it's insurance sales... with phone numbers (as of december, looks like they're spamming scammy fi...
I think if I took the tour & perhaps looked at a few posts, I'd already doubt that it'd be all right to post 'Help Wanted' adverts as questions. Not sure it's a common enough misconception to merit a specific mention in help pages.
I'm not sure what I think the default outcome ought to be; but note that moderators can refund a bounty (while it's still on offer), so you can flag if you think someone's losing the rep. they've staked on a now-closed q. would be harsh.
@SextusEmpiricus: I cast the third close vote, & I might have refunded the bounty; but didn't, for the reason @whuber has divined. After all, you & others have already put some effort into elucidating what's needed to make the q. answerable - perhaps as a result of the prominence afforded it by the bounty - & it's nothing that ought to be unduly onerous to provide.
I'm glad you asked this, since it comes up a lot in support emails and flags.
The answer probably isn't as simple as you'd like... So let's walk our way through it:
First, take responsibility for the situation
You've posted something you shouldn't have. Maybe you're violating someone else's right...
Ah, that's the q. that had 500 lines of code (& no data) to start with. I suspect you'd need to be very familiar with the particular area of application to succeed in guessing what it's about. I've explained to the O.P. how to delete it should they wish.
@StephanKolassa Of course: I meant if someone wanted to get a feel for how Codidact is beforehand, participating in their Maths site might be a good idea
Inept & overweening though S.E. Inc. may be, the company haven't interfered at all - to the best of my knowledge - in the moderation of this site over the nine years since I was elected moderator; nor do I think the ever-more-detailed iterations of codes of conduct have affected moderation since the days of 'Be nice'. I shouldn't like anyone to be deterred from standing for a moderator position by the thought that they'd have a lot of hassle to deal with from that source.
We're excited to announce that Google will be sponsoring Cross Validated Stack Exchange beginning January 9th, going through March 31st. We wanted to give you a heads-up and walk you through what it will look like.
How and where will the sponsorship be displayed?
The sponsorship will be shown on ...
We're thrilled to announce that AWS will be sponsoring Cross Validated starting on July 18 through December 31. We wanted to give you a heads-up and walk you through what that means.
How and where will the sponsorship be displayed?
The sponsorship will be found on the right side of the header at ...
@User1865345 Diamond moderators were asked privately a couple of months ago if we knew of any particular concerns users might have about Google's sponsoring the site - we didn't. There was supposed to have been a post on our Meta from S.E. before the sponsorship started.
Of course we're happy to accept the ability to engage in a coherent conversation as sufficient evidence of 'semantic understanding' in a human; & reasonably enough, given what we know about humans. But in other cases we oughtn't to be deprived of the chance to test communication in & about a common environment: this is where the Turing Test falls short.
@whuber One can't. ChatGPT doesn't mean anything it says - because meaning something requires links between the words you use & things out there in the world. Such links were forged for the authors of the corpus on which ChatGPT was trained as they learnt their first language ('Apple!', says Mummy, pointing at an apple both her & Baby can see), but not for ChatGPT itself.
Anyway I did join the strike: I hope it knocks some sense into the company, & they start to take a collaborative, evidence-based, approach to this & other issues. Good night!
I commented the other day:-"Perhaps we're fortunate, in a way, that ChatGPT's so bad at answering the kind of questions we get. An answer's being halfway decent already casts some doubt on the hypothesis that it's a thoughtless cut-&-paste job from a ChatGPT response. Anyway I don't think sites that have banned it outright have necessarily made the wrong decision for themselves."
@User1865345 That's a lot of flags! I can't vouch for all 500-odd moderators across 100-odd sites, but I haven't come across any advocacy for reliance on detectors alone - quite the opposite.
@User1865345 Yes, the palaver about detectors seems to be smoke & mirrors. The world & his dog have known for quite a while that they're not especially reliable.