3 ms·
As with all Wikipedia competitors, this misses two key points Firstly the most critical part of competing with WP is not the technology, it's having the critic
by ErrantX 2y ago
As with all Wikipedia competitors, this misses two key points
Firstly the most critical part of competing with WP is not the technology, it's having the critical mass of people willing to write article. Scandals aside over decades hundreds of thousands of people have built out the content and continue to do so - that is not easy to emulate.
Also for all the scandals, the toughest problems in WP early days were spammers and trolls. Moderation is a niche community problem (which till you have a community is moot). Stopping bot armies and countless trolls is a day 1 issue.
- aljgz 2y agoOut of genuine curiosity, what are the scandals?
- GuB-42 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversie... One good thing about Wikipedia is that it is pretty open with regards to internal affairs. If you want to criticize Wikipedia, there is no better source than Wikipedia itself.
- thierrydamiba 2y ago[dead]
- ErrantX 2y agoAs always, there is an article about it :) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controvers...
- ComplexSystems 2y ago> Firstly the most critical part of competing with WP is not the technology, it's having the critical mass of people willing to write article. This is much less of an issue now that there are LLMs, even with the occasional hallucination.
- lionkor 2y agoLLMs do not write information dense content
- throwaway2037 2y agoI have no experience with LLMs. Can you ask them to write in a dense style? Does it work?
- lionkor 2y agoBy design they just approximate human language, they don't really have a concept of information or how information-dense something is. they're good for writing emails.
- ErrantX 2y agoActually writing the content is usually the easiest part. 98% of writing these articles is research. Current LLMs are nowhere near good enough.
- harrisi 2y agoOne must always assume anything an LLM outputs is false until proven otherwise, not the opposite.
- birriel 2y agoOk, but that criterion is true for human-generated output as well.
- fragmede 2y agoFalse. Please prove otherwise.
- harrisi 2y agoIf you truly never believe anything anyone has ever told you until you prove it yourself, I'm amazed you've somehow learned to type in English on a website with accounts. We trust people all the time for many reasons. Authority, past experience, logic (why would they lie about something in context), etc. and we get by alright. Knowing it's another conscious, mortal human existing in society makes it much easier to know when someone is likely being truthful. Obviously there are all sorts of caveats to that. The main difference is that LLMs don't lie. They don't tell the truth either. They just generate stuff with no meaning. There's no way to ever put any trust in that, the same way I wouldn't trust my ice maker to make sure my dog gets enough water while I'm on vacation.