3 ms·
The Wikipedia community has generally been pretty resistant to allowing fully AI-based tools in. We've had tools such as Lsjbot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L
by hayleox 3y ago
The Wikipedia community has generally been pretty resistant to allowing fully AI-based tools in. We've had tools such as Lsjbot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsjbot) in the past, but they've failed to gain community consent on any of the large Wikipedias. If someone tries to bring an LLM-based tool to Wikipedia, it would take a lot of finesse to have any shot of the community allowing it.
- bruce343434 3y agoI don't think it takes much finesse to just randomly start "improving" articles using the output of an LLM. It only takes a single well meaning yet misguided person. Remember this? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/26/shock-an-aw-us-teenager-wrote-huge-slice-of-scots-wikipedia https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/26/shock-an-aw-...
- hayleox 3y agoYeah, definitely a potential problem on the smaller language Wikipedias as the Scots Wikipedia incident shows, but for the big ones, low-quality content from new editors is not really a new problem to deal with.
- 1270018080 3y agoBut what about the whole mass of tech bros who don't understand what LLM's are (random text generators and nothing more), and manually start to add changes? It's a virus polluting every industry.