3 ms·

I think it's pretty clear that as a tool they can be used very effectively if you have at least some understanding of their limitations. I will say that wikipe

I think it's pretty clear that as a tool they can be used very effectively if you have at least some understanding of their limitations. I will say that wikipedia, as things stand, is way more accurate than chatgpt. So much so that comparing them doesn't even make sense to me.

cheschire 2y ago
Until you can quantifiably prove Wikipedia is more accurate than ChatGPT, I’m not sure how you can say GP’s comparison doesn’t make sense.
- nebulous1 2y ago
  Okay, I can't defend that because in reality I'm talking purely from my subjective experience. I will say that in my experience it isn't close at all. However, I will also say that a lot of the things that chatgpt gets wrong for me, wikipedia just won't contain at all, but then chatgpt seeming confident when it's wrong is basically the whole problem.
  - cheschire 2y ago
    Wikipedia has well documented and explored issues related to vandalism, bias, and misinformation. But don’t get me wrong, I also view ChatGPT conversations as being on par with pub chats as far as “confident facts” go. I think our difference may be in how we view Wikipedia.
    - ninkendo 2y ago
      > Wikipedia has well documented and explored issues related to vandalism, bias, and misinformation. Last I read about this, the error rate in Wikipedia was actually lower than in the Encyclopedia Britannica, by a measurable amount. This was a while back, and admittedly it only counted articles where there was an equivalent article in both (which probably gives a better picture of Wikipedia, as those kinds of “boring” articles have less vandalism…) but it’s not immediately a given that Wikipedia is just objectively bad at being accurate.
  - sieste 2y ago
    One way of looking at it is that Wikipedia has a transparent and auditable way of correcting and updating false information, which makes it inherently more reliable and trustworthy than tensor weights finetuned by unreproducible human feedback.

cheschire 2y ago

Until you can quantifiably prove Wikipedia is more accurate than ChatGPT, I’m not sure how you can say GP’s comparison doesn’t make sense.

nebulous1 2y ago
Okay, I can't defend that because in reality I'm talking purely from my subjective experience. I will say that in my experience it isn't close at all. However, I will also say that a lot of the things that chatgpt gets wrong for me, wikipedia just won't contain at all, but then chatgpt seeming confident when it's wrong is basically the whole problem.
- cheschire 2y ago
  Wikipedia has well documented and explored issues related to vandalism, bias, and misinformation. But don’t get me wrong, I also view ChatGPT conversations as being on par with pub chats as far as “confident facts” go. I think our difference may be in how we view Wikipedia.
  - ninkendo 2y ago
    > Wikipedia has well documented and explored issues related to vandalism, bias, and misinformation. Last I read about this, the error rate in Wikipedia was actually lower than in the Encyclopedia Britannica, by a measurable amount. This was a while back, and admittedly it only counted articles where there was an equivalent article in both (which probably gives a better picture of Wikipedia, as those kinds of “boring” articles have less vandalism…) but it’s not immediately a given that Wikipedia is just objectively bad at being accurate.
- sieste 2y ago
  One way of looking at it is that Wikipedia has a transparent and auditable way of correcting and updating false information, which makes it inherently more reliable and trustworthy than tensor weights finetuned by unreproducible human feedback.