[akpa1]

I really don't like this sentiment:

> "Because I can get an answer from an LLM (which does need to be verified) in less than a minute versus the hours or days I would have to wait to get a toxic and potentially useless reply on stackoverflow. They should really downsize or just kill the company it’s a relic of the past and most developers won’t miss it."

To me, the value of StackOverflow is not in the ability to ask new questions, it's as a huge archive of questions that have already answered. Sure, new questions might be falling off and it might be decreasing in relevance, but that in no way means that a massively resource-intensive LLM regurgitating paragraphs of semi-duplicated text is better enough to justify canning it. (There's also the matter of all the other StackExchange sites, I have no idea what the state of the world is on those but I imagine they also have value in themselves.)

To this day, I find almost all of my low-level questions are still readily answered by StackOverflow, and it holds lots of discussion on higher-level questions that I find useful.

Does StackOverflow have an attitude problem? Absolutely. It is fair to say that most developers won't miss it? No.

[JohnFen]

> To me, the value of StackOverflow is not in the ability to ask new questions, it's as a huge archive of questions that have already answered.

What made SO no longer useful to me, though, is that far too many of the existing answers are either obsolete or incorrect.