On the contrary, the people trying to keep the site a useful, curated source of information (rather than a dumping ground for people trying to get others to debug code for them) are on balance strongly against every kind of AI involvement with the site, including the use of that information for training AI (although we can't do anything about that). We curate a repository of high quality questions and answer (which is a "Q&A site", and is specifically what the site is supposed to be, so as to distinguish it from traditional forums) exactly because we want it to be a place where you get information from humans that reflects original human insight.

Which is also the reason for the ban on GenAI content (https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/421831).

The primary question is that who is deciding that what kind of information is curated and whether the arguments have been properly voted, and the process itself is transparent.

I guess nobody could disagree, that it benefits all if the site is useful and whether the content is factually correct and up-to-date and follows Q&A format.

I admit, I haven't followed what happens closely for some time, but here is some older example post: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/389834/statement-fr...

Instead of linking how the process is transparent, you chose to attack me. I guess it hasn't changed then.

I am not attacking you; I am questioning your bona fides. I didn't link you because you have already demonstrated awareness of the only reasonable links to give you in context.