4 ms·
To be fair, Wikipedia also “speaks with confidence” and makes no attempt to make it easy to understand exactly how confident one should be in the facts presente
by O__________O 4y ago
To be fair, Wikipedia also “speaks with confidence” and makes no attempt to make it easy to understand exactly how confident one should be in the facts presented. At one point they had said the would, but never did to my knowledge. Google has TrustRank, but to my knowledge it’s on a source-level basis, not fact-level basis.
- Semaphor 4y ago> At one point they had said the would, but never did to my knowledge. I think autocorrect or something mangled your sentence beyond recognition.
- O__________O 4y agoWhat specifically is unclear? Wikipedia said they would enable users at to be able to quickly tell what the confidence was in the facts being presented and to my knowledge never did. My understanding is that even now that linked sources are not even systematically checked to confirm they even relate to the related passage of text.
- Semaphor 4y agothe -> they That was probably readable by context for most, yet not for me ;)
- O__________O 4y agoMy bad, thanks for the clarification, even in rereading sentence, didn’t notice the error.
- FerociousTimes 4y agoThe bot got it unequivocally wrong here. When it said that the vast majority of the population of what's now modern-day France spoke modern French as their native language, that's categorically false and shouldn't be treated with leniency or open to interpretations.
- O__________O 4y agoMy point is cherry picking flaws won’t help improve anything for ChatGPT, Wikipedia, etc — but systematic approaches to discovering and modeling information space and related fact, queries, etc would. Wikipedia not free of issues and to my knowledge does not allow end user to see Wikipedia’s confidence in a given fact, if they have one at all.
- FerociousTimes 4y agoThese sort of statements are by nature speculative not factual, and thus speakers are advised to express and communicate doubt, and hedge against uncertainty inherent in their views, and probably even vicious rebuttals, by using appropriate language constructs or terminology, but when a know-it-all bot that was trained by its handlers to pass always as an authority figure makes a mistake due to hubris or overconfidence, don't expect us to sit idle, and not call them out, and refute their claims accordingly.
- O__________O 4y agoUnderstand, though where exactly does ChatGPT claim to be a source of factual information? Wikipedia on the other hand does clearly state its intent to maintain reliability of its content: - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_and_fact-checking https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_and_fact-checking - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia Beyond that, in my opinion, while human dialogue might hedge confidence, disclose conflicts of interest, etc — to me, assumed the exchange is via text-based chat — there are much more efficient and effective ways to express that information than adding non-actionable text like that.
- cmeacham98 4y ago> Understand, though where exactly does ChatGPT claim to be a source of factual information? It doesn't right now, but if you scroll up, you'll see the idea at the beginning of this thread is to turn it into a source of information. The difference between ChatGPT and Wikipedia for this purpose is that: 1. Wikipedia is wrong wayyyyyyyy less often than ChatGPT 2. Wikipedia has sources linked at the bottom of the page you can go check, while ChatGPT does not