5 ms·
Many of the comments in this thread seem to not have anything to do with the content of the article, or the researchers' blog post cited within the article. The
by oarabbus_ 4y ago
Many of the comments in this thread seem to not have anything to do with the content of the article, or the researchers' blog post cited within the article. There also seem to be some mistaken assumptions about the purpose of this AI.
Here is what the model is actually (attempting) to do:
>It calls attention to questionable citations, allowing human editors to evaluate the cases most likely to be flawed without having to sift through thousands of properly cited statements. If a citation seems irrelevant, our model will suggest a more applicable source, even pointing to the specific passage that supports the claim. Eventually, our goal is to build a platform to help Wikipedia editors systematically spot citation issues and quickly fix the citation or correct the content of the corresponding article at scale.
- tmaly 4y agoIf the citations are to really old out of print books, how can it tell what is true and what is not?
- charcircuit 4y agoThey admit in the research paper that the AI is only for references to web pages for articles written in English. You can't use it to verify citations to books. Edit: To clarify it could replace a citation to a book with a web page assuming that information exists on the internet.
- tux3 4y agoPlugging it into your local libgen/scihub equivalent is left as an exercise to the reader Nothing that can't be done in principle, just hard/tedious engineering
- oarabbus_ 4y agoThe article states the training set included 134 million only webpage/URL citations. Since it is open-source, I'd imagine some researchers with computer vision expertise and skilled with document/text digitization could greatly enhance this AI by digitizing these old books and including them in the training.
- jpalomaki 4y agoIf this approach works, Google could help. They scanned lots of books [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books
- sebastianconcpt 4y agoNothing non-digitally readable, editable and re-writable will count as input for the AI
- sebastianconcpt 4y agoWith this, I also mean, let's better blockchain immutably the classics if we want humanity to have any defense of History from being re-written.
- sebow 4y ago> allowing human editors Ah, the renowned human editors/fact-checkers/moderators that Facebook employs, great.
- netsharc 4y agoThere was a IIRC German politician who was part of a prank involving Wikipedia, someone claimed in his Wikipedia article that he had 200+ names. Lazy news writers quoted the Wikipedia article as a "fun fact" segment, and the Wikipedia article then turned around and said "here's an authoritative source on that 200+ names..."
- nnamtr 4y agoNot 200, like 10. Someone added a false one, and it found its way to serious websites. German source: https://bildblog.de/5704/wie-ich-freiherr-von-guttenberg-zu-wilhelm-machte/ https://bildblog.de/5704/wie-ich-freiherr-von-guttenberg-zu-...
- MauranKilom 4y agohttps://xkcd.com/978/ https://xkcd.com/978/
- PoignardAzur 4y ago> Many of the comments in this thread seem to not have anything to do with the content of the article, or the researchers' blog post cited within the article. I know, right? The halo effect is strong in this thread.
- wutbrodo 4y agoHN on FAANG-related threads may as well be a default sub on Reddit. Practically guaranteed to get a heaping dose of childish, manic hysteria instead of a basic understanding of the article's content. Ive got no love for FB or "fact-checking", but I knew much of this thread would be a dumpster fire.
- notahacker 4y agoThis. Even a pretty poor model (and it probably will be) would be a huge boon to editors in an encyclopedia full of references which are missing, out of date, a bit stretchy or plain bad faith. Wikipedia already has bots on it doing grunt work, and plenty of editors that like doing grunt work of checking minor details more than writing new content.
- porker 4y agoI would like this to be available as a search engine too, so I can input an idea and get relevant citations for it. This would help explore prior work in any field.
- ahmadmijot 4y agoWow, I wonder if this can also be applied to academic papers. Not for detecting plagiarism (there are already tools for that), but for 'improper' (?) citation
- visarga 4y agoIt's just one of the low hanging AI fruits we can pick now, nothing unexpected. We're doing similar things to find errors in our regular ML datasets - a large proportion of the examples the model can't predict are mislabeled. Those mislabeled examples have a big penalty on performance. Since Wikipedia is often used in ML, it was time to clean it up.
- bell-cot 4y agoBy very amusing coincidence, one of my favorite YouTube subject matter experts posted a video on this exact problem (questionable citations) less than 24 hour ago - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1HwANCSJMU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1HwANCSJMU (The video's context is the sinking of the German battleship Bismark. Whether or not you've any interest in that subject, the video can still give you a far better sense of the problem than Singularly Hub's article.)
- euroderf 4y agoFacebook Footnote Systemization (FFS)