Wikipedia Editors Reject Founder's AI Review Proposal After ChatGPT Fails Basic Policy Test (404media.co)
- Reference: 0178892428
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/08/27/107221/wikipedia-editors-reject-founders-ai-review-proposal-after-chatgpt-fails-basic-policy-test
- Source link: https://www.404media.co/jimmy-wales-wikipedia-ai-chatgpt/
Editors argued automated systems producing incorrect advice would undermine Wikipedia's human-centered model. The conflict follows earlier tensions over the Wikimedia Foundation's AI experiments, including a [2]paused AI summary feature and new policies [3]targeting AI-generated content .
[1] https://www.404media.co/jimmy-wales-wikipedia-ai-chatgpt/
[2] https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/06/11/1732215/wikipedia-pauses-ai-generated-summaries-after-editor-backlash
[3] https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/08/05/1746242/wikipedia-editors-adopt-speedy-deletion-policy-for-ai-slop-articles
At this point, AI is a hoax! (Score:3)
"suggested citing non-existent sources" Today AI is just advanced automated pretending!
Re: (Score:3)
It's a bit worse than that.
It is effectively an "please generate a text that looks as much as possible as the correct answer", with the failure mode being text that LOOKS like the right thing, at a point a human not scrutinizing it enough will think it is the correct response.
It's the perfect liar.
So conflicted... (Score:2)
On the one hand, I am very familiar with how much garbage AI produces, especially when you ask it to edit articles with sources etc, which would not be as bad if it was obvious garbage, but it's not so it takes quite some effort to rifle through it.
On the other hand, I absolutely despise Wikipedia editors, so I don't know if AI is much worse. I was a regular contributor until I realised most of my edits were being removed for no good reason, so contributing by the average person was pointless. And then came
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be that we could write articles without having inline citations.
But then the rules became ever more strict about how information must be notable, verifiable and reliable.
Though that happened about 20 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yeah, I never added details without references. Still most things would not stick for more than a few months. So not immediate, I only realised after I noticed something important missing from an article that I was sure I had added, and then went back and looked at my contribution history and whether my additions were still there... Most were not (along with other parts of the articles missing or rewritten), it looked like I was wasting my time so gave up.
Fsck their fules. (Score:2)
"must be notable, verifiable and reliable."
For various definitions of those words. I and others wrote and edited a page about a specific 1990s TCP talk server codebase. Everything in it was verifiable given the author of the code wrote the majority of it, ditto reliable. Notable? Well the code was a Big Deal back in the mid to late 90s and the code in various forms gave rise to dozens of servers with possibly thousands of users spread across them in its hayday. But most wiki editors were probably still at s
So somebody tried to let chatgtp run a business (Score:2)
Just one of those vending machine businesses. About as simple as a business can get.
What they found was that it would work well initially but every single time it would eventually just go crazy. Usually around the time that it needed to keep track of what had to be ordered for restocking after a period of time sometimes when new machines had to be put in new locations.
Eventually it would start hallucinating and not just screwing up the orders or the accounting but just going absolutely ape shit and
Good (Score:3)
A good thing, overall. Large language models (colloquially called "AI") have too many problems. They don't really "understand" anything in a real sense, they just are able to pattern match.
I can see, however, that Wikipedia (like almost everything else on the internet that isn't locked off) is undergoing a tidal wave of spam (likely much of it generated by these same Large Language Models), and it would indeed be useful to find an automated way to deal with it, and save the human time spent to actually writing articles.