3 ms·
Can you elaborate? I see this paper as explicitly giving Wikipedia useful information and the ability to make decisions. I think keeping these things transpar
by RupertEisenhart 4y ago
Can you elaborate?
I see this paper as explicitly giving Wikipedia useful information and the ability to make decisions.
I think keeping these things transparent is good for Google.
- forgetfreeman 4y agoTraining AI isn't a core goal of Wikipedia so the notion that this information is useful to them seems questionable.
- _flux 4y agoHowever, wouldn't a GPT trained exactly on Wikipedia be quite useful? It would be the biggest user-editable training material for a language model that can be asked about things. In addition to the obvious use of responding to questions based on the material, perhaps it could be a tool for finding e.g. if and how a cited source relates to the article where it was cited. Abuse detection could also be one application. I couldn't exactly find out what the goal of Wikipedia is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia but it doesn't seem a "better search" would be opposite to those goals.
- taormina 4y agoOh boy, the best place for subtle errors. A public wiki, being proofread by someone who is likely not a subject matter expert! I don’t see anyway this can go poorly. And obviously search hasn’t been solved for decades.
- forgetfreeman 4y agoClaims that GPT produces "better search" are groundless until GPT demonstrably produces "better search" and the resulting product has been observed for unintended consequences. Gonna be a wait.
- RupertEisenhart 4y agoThey paper is also telling them how to poison their databases, so if they really wanted to avoid being used in that way they could do. The paper also tells them how to solve that issue, which is what google would prefer. But they are letting wikipedia make that choice.