3 ms·
Agreed in genera but the volatile edit history of many Wikipedia articles would bely your definition of constant. Also scientific articles being constant don't
by Solvency 3y ago
Agreed in genera but the volatile edit history of many Wikipedia articles would bely your definition of constant.
Also scientific articles being constant don't quite matter when the "status quo" of science is asymmetrically understood.
There are doctors today still pushing the "fat is unhealthy" myth because of the sugar industry. Despite the ubiquity of modern unbiased research papers and proof.
But when you ask a doctor for advice, you're essentially getting the wetware equivalent of a stochastic parrot, because this random doctor is giving you dynamic answers coming from his/her own completely non-standardized corpus of knowledge.
- NBJack 3y agoTo be fair, at least Wikipedia offers a traceable history of those edits. Most, if not all sufficiently large LLMs, are effectively opaque boxes that even their creator can rarely explain how a specific answer was reached, much less how the billions of parameters changed in the network over time.
- hughesjj 3y agoYou can also peg a known good version of Wikipedia and host it locally. That said I can't imagine trying to audit the whole shebang.