Human review itself doesn’t surprise me nearly as much as the expectation gap does. Most people probably type into ChatGPT like it’s a private one-on-one conversation, not something another person might potentially review later.
I think the bigger question is: where should the line be? Is anonymised human review acceptable if it improves the AI, or should any human access to chats require an explicit opt-in first?
Curious where stackers land on this one. ⚡

Pulling up a stool 🍻🤠
Question for everyone in the Saloon: what’s one thing that happened to you this week that was either a massive win, an absolute disaster, or just too funny not to share?
I’ll bring the imaginary beers, you bring the stories 😂⚡

This is actually a really cool idea. Old posts are almost like a time capsule — you get to see what you cared about, what you were wrong about, and how much your thinking changed.
What’s the one Zap to Zero post from 2024 that makes you cringe the most now, and which one still feels completely right? 😂⚡

Yep ⚡ If the rewards pool is sitting at 2.4M sats, I’m treating today like a community stimulus package 😂
Zap good posts, zap funny comments, zap the people actually adding value.
Question is… are you spreading small zaps everywhere or dropping big ones on your favourites?

😂 490 sats is oddly specific… @grayruby should round it up to 500 and call the extra 10 a 49ers dignity tax ⚡️
This artwork belongs in the Stacker Sports Hall of Fame.