[Someone1234]

ChatGPT was released in Nov 2022, and frankly wasn't very good originally. The SO decline started occurring almost two years ahead of that, and was already on a sharp decline before ChatGPT shipped, and certainly before ChatGPT actually became good.

This is revisionist history. People told SO that they were leaving for YEARS because of how incredibly toxic it had become. It was already giving outdated answers before ChatGPT shipped, because new questions/potentially updated answers were [Closed] [Dupe] immediately.

Their answer was essentially "We aren't a Q&A site, we're trying to be a knowledge base! So closing all questions on a Q&A-stylized site, and extremely abrasive moderation, is working as intended."

They entirely did this to themselves. The community was toxic, their policies were toxic, and they didn't listen when warned as such repeatedly - just doubled down.

[inigyou]

Two years before ChatGPT is shortly after Joel and Jeff sold Stack Overflow to private equity.

The Monica affair was one of the first symptoms.

[jeanlucas]

For those who don't know what the Monica affair was: https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/393046/who-or-what-...

[lynndotpy]

The graph is not presenting a narrative, did you mean to reply to someone else who is presenting the "revisionist history"?

In 2023, Stack Overflow had already started making unpopular pro-AI moderation decisions, and in 2024, they started mass banning everyone who deleted their questions and answers in protest. I don't think it's wholly incorrect to say "AI killed Stack Overflow" when the death blow came from crazy pro-AI decisions from the admin.

[Someone1234]

> The graph is not presenting a narrative, did you mean to reply to someone else who is presenting the "revisionist history"?

The title of this thread is "What AI did to stackoverflow in a graph." That's a narrative. At least before the mods change it.

[lynndotpy]

Ah you're right, that's totally on me. I don't know how I missed that