Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study examines the impact of banning generative AI-generated content (AIGC) in Stack Exchange communities, revealing a dual effect on knowledge dynamics. While the ban leads to an increase in the volume of questions asked, it simultaneously decreases the efficiency of contributions, as fewer questions receive satisfactory answers in a timely manner. The findings highlight that these effects are particularly pronounced in non-STEM communities, where the reliability of AIGC is lower and social interaction is more valued.
Banning generative AI in Q&A communities boosts question volume but paradoxically hinders the efficiency of answers, revealing a complex relationship between AI use and community engagement.
We investigate how banning generative artificial intelligence-generated content (AIGC) affects knowledge seeking, knowledge contribution, and contribution efficiency in online question-and-answer communities. After the launch of ChatGPT in late November 2022, several Stack Exchange communities implemented official bans on AIGC over concerns such as less reliable and socially engaged content. Leveraging data from the full network of Stack Exchange communities, we employ a difference-in-differences (DID) approach to examine the impacts of these bans. Our results reveal a double-edged impact: while the AIGC ban increases knowledge seeking, as evidenced by a higher volume of posted questions, it simultaneously reduces contribution efficiency, reflected in a lower proportion of questions receiving satisfactory answers within the expected time frame. Notably, these impacts are only evident in non-STEM communities. We take a socio-technical perspective to explore information reliability and social interactivity as two plausible underlying factors driving the observed changes. Our mechanism exploration reveals that the AIGC ban spurs question volume in topics where AIGC is less reliable and where social interaction is highly expected. In contrast, the ban hampers answer efficiency in communities where LLMs are capable of producing reliable answers and where social interactivity is minimal. Additionally, our results indicate the increased human involvement from knowledge seekers and contributors following the ban. They adapt their behavior by posting questions and answers that are more informationally rich and socially engaging. Overall, our findings offer actionable implications for platform managers, community moderators, and policymakers of online Q&A communities.