What if helping each other isn't just a welcome pleasantry but the core task of programming?
LLM users remind me of Twitter/X users. The raw value that LLMs disseminate is the ever quietening echoes of the artefacts left by humans helping another. Similarly the original value of Twitter/X was created by its now almost forgotten era of sincere interactions between genuine humans. Twitter/X's soul is gone, the only thing keeping it alive is inertia. The same with LLM output: it's working right now because we're still so close to the era of genuine human output, but as Newton discovered, inertia is not infinite energy. It's like turning up to party after it's finished, you're only there because somebody else who actually contributed to the party is still there.
I've been thinking about Stack Overflow drying up and honestly; I feel profoundly sad.
I don't. Whenever I asked a question on Stack Overflow, it was "off-topic" even if a bunch of people were interested and had the same problem. Same with my replies.
You know who did help me? Random strangers on Stack Overflow. People who had nothing to gain from helping me other than just trying to help someone in need.
Random moderators on Stack Overflow prevented any productive discussion from happening. The site's decline was certain before the advent of LLMs due to its hostile moderation policy. Let's not retcon why Stack Overflow declined.
stackoverflow really failed to create a kind community; and it's such a shame, because they concretely had the choice to do that or not, and they chose not.
i agree with the sentiment of this post; and can relate to the person's joy at finding a community online; but for me stackoverflow was never that place; despite how much i occasionally wanted it to be.
the sad thing is that early stackoverflow was that place. people were genuinely nice and helpful and felt good about helping each other for free when sites like expertsexchange were doing their best to have the questions rank on google but paywall the answers.
Came here to make sure this got said. StackOverflow was great. Initially…
The following
Random strangers on Stack Overflow. People who had nothing to gain from helping me other than just trying to help someone in need
is a little misleading. Most people helped because there was a potential of something in it for them. Karma points, or being able to influence something, or more abstractly “someone helped me so I should pay it forward”.
Over time it slowly turned to shit. The “organizers” showed up and tried to make it a sort of living software manual. It was a great example of how Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy isn’t just for businesses.
The “organizers” showed up and tried to make it a sort of living software manual.
Not even living software manual, as when situation changes radically five or ten years later, in practice one cannot re-ask, and neither is replacing top-ranked obsolete answer reaslistic in the majority of cases.
I was about to do a "that's a good title!" upvote, but I decided to read the post based on its source.
What a great article. Sometimes reading an article whose title inclines me to upvote prevents me from voting, but this time the opposite happened. It's better to read this article than to upvote.
tombh | 9 hours ago
What if helping each other isn't just a welcome pleasantry but the core task of programming?
LLM users remind me of Twitter/X users. The raw value that LLMs disseminate is the ever quietening echoes of the artefacts left by humans helping another. Similarly the original value of Twitter/X was created by its now almost forgotten era of sincere interactions between genuine humans. Twitter/X's soul is gone, the only thing keeping it alive is inertia. The same with LLM output: it's working right now because we're still so close to the era of genuine human output, but as Newton discovered, inertia is not infinite energy. It's like turning up to party after it's finished, you're only there because somebody else who actually contributed to the party is still there.
BenjaminRi | 5 hours ago
I don't. Whenever I asked a question on Stack Overflow, it was "off-topic" even if a bunch of people were interested and had the same problem. Same with my replies.
Random moderators on Stack Overflow prevented any productive discussion from happening. The site's decline was certain before the advent of LLMs due to its hostile moderation policy. Let's not retcon why Stack Overflow declined.
noon | 4 hours ago
agree 1000%.
stackoverflow really failed to create a kind community; and it's such a shame, because they concretely had the choice to do that or not, and they chose not.
i agree with the sentiment of this post; and can relate to the person's joy at finding a community online; but for me stackoverflow was never that place; despite how much i occasionally wanted it to be.
zem | 3 hours ago
the sad thing is that early stackoverflow was that place. people were genuinely nice and helpful and felt good about helping each other for free when sites like expertsexchange were doing their best to have the questions rank on google but paywall the answers.
icefox | 4 hours ago
I guess we can learn from their failure, at least. What communities would people contrast them with?
noon | 4 hours ago
for me it was older programming-language specific forums, that had a place for technical conversations, and a place for random chit-chat.
dallen | 3 hours ago
Not really 1:1, but irc has been great for me over the years.
hjvt | 15 minutes ago
Some sub-communities of SO were friendlier than others. Rust tag was monitored mostly by the same people who'd also answer your questions on URLO
Student | 4 hours ago
There was a time many years ago when stackoverflow was great. Then yes moderators started deciding everything was off topic.
travisgriggs | 3 hours ago
Came here to make sure this got said. StackOverflow was great. Initially…
The following
is a little misleading. Most people helped because there was a potential of something in it for them. Karma points, or being able to influence something, or more abstractly “someone helped me so I should pay it forward”.
Over time it slowly turned to shit. The “organizers” showed up and tried to make it a sort of living software manual. It was a great example of how Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy isn’t just for businesses.
k749gtnc9l3w | an hour ago
Not even living software manual, as when situation changes radically five or ten years later, in practice one cannot re-ask, and neither is replacing top-ranked obsolete answer reaslistic in the majority of cases.
zem | 3 hours ago
yes, the way I put it is that LLMs might have definitively killed stack overflow, but mismoderation had already made it something no one would mourn.
bediger4000 | 7 hours ago
I was about to do a "that's a good title!" upvote, but I decided to read the post based on its source.
What a great article. Sometimes reading an article whose title inclines me to upvote prevents me from voting, but this time the opposite happened. It's better to read this article than to upvote.
gunduzc | 2 hours ago
lobste.rs is where I come for the feeling of excitement and passion that computing can sometimes provide.
It feels like home right now. A place where people care about what I care about. And lately, the only such place.
This sense of community is something I treasure deeply. Without lobste.rs, I would feel lonelier every day.
That's not what Stack Overflow made me feel like, but I get the sentiment.
We should keep being there for one another and for our communities, yes. Else, we're lost. At least, I know I am.