Return to Answer

• Prosus has known about AI and its workings for years.

• They have their own AI team.

• They have purchased StackExchange, Udemy, CodeAcademy, and other learning sites.

For those who might not understand what I'm saying about shareholders - Prosus, owner of the SE/SO collection of sites, is a public company. "Public" means that a company, such as Prosus, provides stocks, aka, a portion of the company that can be purchased by the public or provided to their employees as compensation. The people who own these stocks are called "stockholders" or "shareholders".

• Prosus has known about AI and its workings for years.

• They have their own AI team.

• They have purchased Stack Exchange, Udemy, Codecademy, and other learning sites.

For those who might not understand what I'm saying about shareholders - Prosus, owner of the SE/SO collection of sites, is a public company. "Public" means that a company, such as Prosus, provides stocks, aka, a portion of the company that can be purchased by the public or provided to their employees as compensation. The people who own these stocks are called "stockholders" or "shareholders".

Update to clarify my update:

For those who might not understand what I'm saying about shareholders - Prosus, owner of the SE/SO collection of sites, is a public company. "Public" means that a company, such as Prosus, provides stocks, aka, a portion of the company that can be purchased by the public or provided to their employees as compensation. The people who own these stocks are called "stockholders" or "shareholders".

Although these companies are not actually required by law to maximize profit for their shareholders, they often do exactly that - which is why I say "beholden to their shareholders".

What I'm saying with the earlier update is that Prosus can, and likely will, find the optimal way to increase their profits in order to satisfy their shareholders. That may include using the purchased assets, such as SE/SO data, to train AI to teach people to code and to answer their questions - which may or may not make the SE/SO (SO, particularly) sites OBE (no longer necessary).

This has nothing whatsoever to do with my non-support of this strike - the reasons for which are in the portion of my post prior to the updates. The updates are merely further information around why the company might not be interested in yielding to the strikers' demands.

From a longtime SO/SE user: I do not support this strike.

A private company owns this collection of sites. A corporation has the responsibility, and right, to make their own decisions about their properties' functions and appearance. They are not beholden to their volunteers regarding their decisions.

I have seen complaints about "firing" a moderator, the appearance of voting buttons on the sites, and now the disallowance of removal (except in very narrow circumstances) of perceived AI-related posts.

As with any company, I'm sure that Stack Exchange Inc's management has made decisions based on input and findings by their employees as to the best way to proceed.

Just because some volunteers don't like some decisions, and/or the way they were communicated, does not mean the company has to do what the volunteers want done. The company must do what they think is best for their bottom line, including what they think is best for their users.

I personally, and most people I know, have stopped using SO for any new questions because of the combative way we have been treated by some volunteers who believe they know exactly what's right and wrong in every case; who downvote and close questions even when they don't have experience with what's being asked. They're so professional and knowledgeable that they can somehow magically determine whether a question or answer is valid without any experience in the topic.

There are a bunch of companies out in the world, including the creators of ChatGPT, who are trying to find a way to determine whether something was created by AI or a human being. If all of those people can't even determine 100% if something was created by AI, then what extraordinary ability do some SE volunteers have to determine, without a doubt, that a post's information was provided by AI?

OMG: instead of volunteering, you should be getting paid the big bucks for this incredible skill!!!

Update:

After doing some research on Prosus and checking out the SO blog entry from April 2023, Is this the AI renaissance? (Ep. 564): I can say that

• Prosus has known about AI and its workings for years.

• They have their own AI team.

• They have purchased StackExchange, Udemy, CodeAcademy, and other learning sites.

Based on this information, I posit that "the writing's on the wall": Prosus is going to be using these sites' data for its own search/learning system that they can possibly hugely monetize. Soon, no more "volunteers" needed...

And, if international corporations, like US corporations, are beholden to their shareholders... well, that's why they seem to not care about their volunteers.

From a longtime SO/SE user: I do not support this strike.

A company owns this collection of sites. A corporation has the responsibility, and right, to make their own decisions about their properties' functions and appearance. They are not beholden to their volunteers regarding their decisions.

I have seen complaints about "firing" a moderator, the appearance of voting buttons on the sites, and now the disallowance of removal (except in very narrow circumstances) of perceived AI-related posts.

As with any company, I'm sure that Stack Exchange Inc's management has made decisions based on input and findings by their employees as to the best way to proceed.

Just because some volunteers don't like some decisions, and/or the way they were communicated, does not mean the company has to do what the volunteers want done. The company must do what they think is best for their bottom line, including what they think is best for their users.

I personally, and most people I know, have stopped using SO for any new questions because of the combative way we have been treated by some volunteers who believe they know exactly what's right and wrong in every case; who downvote and close questions even when they don't have experience with what's being asked. They're so professional and knowledgeable that they can somehow magically determine whether a question or answer is valid without any experience in the topic.

There are a bunch of companies out in the world, including the creators of ChatGPT, who are trying to find a way to determine whether something was created by AI or a human being. If all of those people can't even determine 100% if something was created by AI, then what extraordinary ability do some SE volunteers have to determine, without a doubt, that a post's information was provided by AI?

OMG: instead of volunteering, you should be getting paid the big bucks for this incredible skill!!!

Update:

After doing some research on Prosus and checking out the SO blog entry from April 2023, Is this the AI renaissance? (Ep. 564): I can say that

• Prosus has known about AI and its workings for years.

• They have their own AI team.

• They have purchased StackExchange, Udemy, CodeAcademy, and other learning sites.

Based on this information, I posit that "the writing's on the wall": Prosus is going to be using these sites' data for its own search/learning system that they can possibly hugely monetize. Soon, no more "volunteers" needed...

And, if international corporations, like US corporations, are beholden to their shareholders... well, that's why they seem to not care about their volunteers.