I'm not. A lot of moderators on SO thought that technology stayed the same from 2014 onward. So I'd often see questions that were exactly the same as the one I asked, but they'd be closed as a duplicate of a question that was subtly different in wording but totally different in technical content. And you would have had to be intimately aware of the systems the question was about to recognize the difference. Most of the moderators doing that did not know enough to be moderating. And so SO became a place where obsolete solutions got cemented in time and where once a question was answered somehow nobody ever tried to answer it again.
>Seems like the LLM training problem but just manifesting in humans.
There are people at the periphery of my life that I suspect are little more than biological LLMs. Their drivel has much in common with AI slop. I'm sure some of you have had similar experiences.
>Actually wonder if replacing all the moderators with LLM would be an improvement.
This might be like putting Skynet in charge of traffic court penalties.
That's what's odd to me. When you're composing a question it will dynamically show links to related answers. So the author has already seen possible duplicates, right? Yet them seem quick to play the Closed for Duplicate card.
The other thing is it will say, "New Contributor, be nice." and their question will have -5 or more downvotes. I think that's because the auto closer needed -5 to trigger or something. I could be wrong. Either way, to a newbie it just looks like they're piling on hate for no reason.
> When you're composing a question it will dynamically show links to related answers. So the author has already seen possible duplicates, right?
Okay, presumably you're familiar with the experience of seeing these links. When you saw them, how much effort did you put into opening them in new tabs and checking whether they answer your question? I'm guessing, not a lot. The UI affordance isn't great. The semantic search is just not very good (and it has to filter through massive piles of dreck) and it constantly updates; it shows you answer counts and doesn't try to sort or filter what it shows you for quality; but most importantly someone writing a question isn't expecting it, and checking it breaks the flow of drafting the question.
> Yet them seem quick to play the Closed for Duplicate card.
My experience has been that the very large majority of these closures are correct, and the large majority of closures complained about on the meta site are very obviously correct and the objections often boil down to trivialities and/or a general opposition to the idea of closing duplicates at all (without attempting to understand the reasons for doing so).
> The other thing is it will say, "New Contributor, be nice." and their question will have -5 or more downvotes. I think that's because the auto closer needed -5 to trigger or something. I could be wrong. Either way, to a newbie it just looks like they're piling on hate for no reason.
No. It's because the downvotes are for quality rating and are explicitly not intended as a rebuke to the OP, regardless of account age or reputation. Also because they affect sort order; because non-duplicates can't be immediately closed, people who want the question closed (note: the explicit, sole purpose of closing a question is to prevent it from receiving new answers) have a vested interest in hiding it from the sort of users who try to answer everything without heed to quality or suitability.
I'm not the one who was down voted or didn't check links.
The last time I started to ask a question I was able to rubber duck the answer so didn't need to post it.
And if I saw -3 votes as a newbie and then watched it go to -4 and -5, that sure feels like a rebuke. You see that every time stackoverflow comes up. People always comment about how mean they are, intended or not.
