3 ms·
This sentiment reminds me of my teachers who complained that Wikipedia is not a reliable source to learn from.
by pietmichal 2y ago
This sentiment reminds me of my teachers who complained that Wikipedia is not a reliable source to learn from.
- puttycat 2y agoWikipedia and LLMs are completely different entities that work in completely different ways.
- auggierose 2y agoAnd yet, much of the same criticism applies to both.
- hyperhopper 2y agoWikipedia is generally right and you can check it's sources. Also everything there was written by a human. LLMs are often wrong and you cannot check their sources. Also since it is generated you can trick it into spitting out falsehoods intentionally. They are not even close.
- auggierose 2y agoYou can also check the sources of LLMs, just ask them for it, and then check that. An LLM is simply more flexible and more powerful than Wikipedia, and thus you have to be more cautious with regards to its results. "Generally right" is not the same as "reliably right", and therefore if you really need to rely on a fact for something important, I would trust neither Wikipedia nor LLMs.
- jacooper 2y ago> LLMs are often wrong and you cannot check their sources. Depends on which LLM you are using, perplexity and copilot both cite their sources.
- ClumsyPilot 2y agoWikipedia is a marvel of the commons and did wonders for education. hostility to it from academia was surprising