15 ms·

Would this be your top request? We're thinking of adding that functionality.

by oshams 3y ago

paxys 3y ago
I haven't used it enough to know if the two models can feasibly coexist. It may be better to just name it more accurately. There will be immense demand for an "automatic documentation generator". A wiki, not quite as much.
hobo_mark 3y ago
Not the op but I don't think it's a request, it's semantics. You are calling wiki something that is really not a wiki, because wikis are editable.
loktarogar 3y ago
Regardless if it's a wiki or not right now, documentation that is wrong and cannot be fixed is worthless
- thfuran 3y ago
  No, it has negative value. Worthlessness world be an improvement.
bbor 3y ago
Consider leaning into “wiki” features fully so you don’t have to lose your name, and adding an edit button isn’t gonna be enough for most people IMO. As you can probably tell from these unusually hostile comments for HN (I think someone above even swore!), people are understandably protective of the wiki movement. It’s a bright, persistent star in a darkening internet, so seeing people use it to make money can be tough. For example: what if instead of one document creator bot, you had an ensemble of personas that act out the motions of wiki editing - many diverse sources submitting small edits, experts reviewing edits before inclusion, etc. Basically just turning the simple 1-step citation verification you mentioned in another comment into a complex stage play of sorts, both for the sake of the bots (would probably cut down on hallucinations to follow Wikipedia procedures) and the humans (what’s the point of a verification tool that you can’t follow along with and meta-verify?). This also solves the edit problem, since humans can follow the same procedure and get the same automated reviews. It wouldnt hurt to go open source, either! Either way cool project, Godspeed.
- oshams 3y ago
  This is a really interesting idea, thanks.

Would this be your top request? We're thinking of adding that functionality.

by oshams 3y ago

Would this be your top request? We're thinking of adding that functionality.

I haven't used it enough to know if the two models can feasibly coexist. It may be better to just name it more accurately. There will be immense demand for an "automatic documentation generator". A wiki, not quite as much.

hobo_mark 3y ago

Not the op but I don't think it's a request, it's semantics. You are calling wiki something that is really not a wiki, because wikis are editable.

loktarogar 3y ago

Regardless if it's a wiki or not right now, documentation that is wrong and cannot be fixed is worthless

thfuran 3y ago
No, it has negative value. Worthlessness world be an improvement.

bbor 3y ago

Consider leaning into “wiki” features fully so you don’t have to lose your name, and adding an edit button isn’t gonna be enough for most people IMO. As you can probably tell from these unusually hostile comments for HN (I think someone above even swore!), people are understandably protective of the wiki movement. It’s a bright, persistent star in a darkening internet, so seeing people use it to make money can be tough. For example: what if instead of one document creator bot, you had an ensemble of personas that act out the motions of wiki editing - many diverse sources submitting small edits, experts reviewing edits before inclusion, etc. Basically just turning the simple 1-step citation verification you mentioned in another comment into a complex stage play of sorts, both for the sake of the bots (would probably cut down on hallucinations to follow Wikipedia procedures) and the humans (what’s the point of a verification tool that you can’t follow along with and meta-verify?). This also solves the edit problem, since humans can follow the same procedure and get the same automated reviews. It wouldnt hurt to go open source, either! Either way cool project, Godspeed.

oshams 3y ago
This is a really interesting idea, thanks.