3 ms·
How are you going to handle this scenario: - Person reads your auto wiki explanation of some part of a codebase. - The explanation is incorrect. - The person
by elicksaur 3y ago
How are you going to handle this scenario:
- Person reads your auto wiki explanation of some part of a codebase.
- The explanation is incorrect.
- The person, believing your explanation as authoritative, complains to the developers of the codebase. Maybe opens an issue on an open-source project, posts on a discord or the like.
- The maintainers now have to deal with this misinformation adding overhead to their workload.
As someone who has helped others who were led astray by ChatGPT, this setup adds a ton of mental baggage to the person’s ask for help. They now have “But ChatGPT said…” to contradict the actually correct thing that you are trying to teach them.
- oshams 3y agoGreat question, here's our plan: 1. Allow users to give feedback on wikis and individual sections (we already have this) 2. Increase accuracy - we will continually push for this. Auto wiki v2 will be significantly more accurate AND informative. 3. Allow for GH repo owners to edit or modify content (seems thats common feedback on this launch). 4. General education and encouragement for people to read the wikis and click through to the actual citation to ground them.