5 ms·

These are not similar. Wikipedia says the same thing to everybody, and when what it says is wrong, anybody can correct it, and they do. Consequently it's alwa

by kragen 2y ago

These are not similar. Wikipedia says the same thing to everybody, and when what it says is wrong, anybody can correct it, and they do. Consequently it's always been fairly reliable.

mjevans 2y ago
Citation Needed - you can track down WHY it's reliable too if the stakes are high enough or the data seems iffy.
- kragen 2y ago
  That's true too, but the bigger difference from my point of view is that factual errors in Wikipedia are relatively uncommon, while, in the LLM output I've been able to generate, factual errors vastly outnumber correct facts. LLMs are fantastic at creativity and language translation but terrible at saying true things instead of false things.
gonzobonzo 2y ago
> Consequently it's always been fairly reliable. Comments like these honestly make me much more concerned than LLM hallucinations. There have been numerous times when I've tracked down the source for a claim, only to find that the source was saying something different, or that the source was completely unreliable (sometimes on the crackpot level). Currently, there's a much greater understanding that LLM's are unreliable. Whereas I often see people treat Wikipedia, posts on AskHistorians, YouTube videos, studies from advocacy groups, and other questionable sources as if they can be relied on. The big problem is that people in general are terrible at exercising critical thinking when they're presented with information. It's probably less of an issue with LLMs at the moment, since they're new technology and a certain amount of skepticism gets applied to their output. But the issue is that once people have gotten more used to them, they'll turn off they're critical thinking in the same manner that they turn it off when absorbing information from other sources that they're used to.
- camgunz 2y ago
  The sell of Wikipedia was never "we'll think so you don't have to", it was never going to disarm you of your skepticism and critical thought, and you can actually check the sources. LLMs are sold as "replace knowledge work(ers)", you cannot check their sources, and the only way you can check their work is by going to something like Wikipedia. They're just fundamentally different things.
  - trashtester 2y ago
    Wikipedia is one of the better sources out there for topics that are not seen as political. For politically loaded topics, though, Wikipedia has become increasingly biased towards one side over the past 10-15 years.
    - 4ggr0 2y ago
      source: the other side (conveniently works in any direction)
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > The sell of Wikipedia was never "we'll think so you don't have to", it was never going to disarm you of your skepticism and critical thought, and you can actually check the sources. You can check them, but Wikipedia doesn't care what they say. When I checked a citation on the French Toast page, and noted that the source said the opposite of what Wikipedia did by annotating that citation with [failed verification], an editor showed up to remove that annotation and scold me that the only thing that mattered was whether the source existed, not what it might or might not say.
    - camgunz 2y ago
      I feel like I hear a lot of criticism about Wikipedia editors, but isn't Wikipedia overall pretty good? I'm not gonna defend every editor action or whatever, but I think the product stands for itself.
lupusreal 2y ago
Lies and mistakes persist on Wikipedia for many years. They just need to sound truthy so they don't jump out to Wikipedia power users who aren't familiar with the subject. I've been keeping tabs on one for about five years, and its several years older than that, which I won't correct because I am IP range banned and I don't feel like making an account and dealing with any basement dwelling power editor NEETs who read Wikipedia rules and processes for fun. I know I'm not the only one to, because this glaring error isn't in a particularly obscure niche, its in the article for a certain notorious defense initiative which has been in the news lately, so this error has plenty of eyes on it. In fact, the error might even be a good thing; it reminds attentive readers that Wikipedia is an unreliable source and you always have to check if citations actually say the thing which is being said in the sentence they're attached to.
- kragen 2y ago
  Maybe you're just wrong about it.

by kragen 2y ago

These are not similar. Wikipedia says the same thing to everybody, and when what it says is wrong, anybody can correct it, and they do. Consequently it's always been fairly reliable.

mjevans 2y ago

Citation Needed - you can track down WHY it's reliable too if the stakes are high enough or the data seems iffy.

kragen 2y ago
That's true too, but the bigger difference from my point of view is that factual errors in Wikipedia are relatively uncommon, while, in the LLM output I've been able to generate, factual errors vastly outnumber correct facts. LLMs are fantastic at creativity and language translation but terrible at saying true things instead of false things.

gonzobonzo 2y ago

> Consequently it's always been fairly reliable. Comments like these honestly make me much more concerned than LLM hallucinations. There have been numerous times when I've tracked down the source for a claim, only to find that the source was saying something different, or that the source was completely unreliable (sometimes on the crackpot level). Currently, there's a much greater understanding that LLM's are unreliable. Whereas I often see people treat Wikipedia, posts on AskHistorians, YouTube videos, studies from advocacy groups, and other questionable sources as if they can be relied on. The big problem is that people in general are terrible at exercising critical thinking when they're presented with information. It's probably less of an issue with LLMs at the moment, since they're new technology and a certain amount of skepticism gets applied to their output. But the issue is that once people have gotten more used to them, they'll turn off they're critical thinking in the same manner that they turn it off when absorbing information from other sources that they're used to.

camgunz 2y ago
The sell of Wikipedia was never "we'll think so you don't have to", it was never going to disarm you of your skepticism and critical thought, and you can actually check the sources. LLMs are sold as "replace knowledge work(ers)", you cannot check their sources, and the only way you can check their work is by going to something like Wikipedia. They're just fundamentally different things.
- trashtester 2y ago
  Wikipedia is one of the better sources out there for topics that are not seen as political. For politically loaded topics, though, Wikipedia has become increasingly biased towards one side over the past 10-15 years.
  - 4ggr0 2y ago
    source: the other side (conveniently works in any direction)
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  > The sell of Wikipedia was never "we'll think so you don't have to", it was never going to disarm you of your skepticism and critical thought, and you can actually check the sources. You can check them, but Wikipedia doesn't care what they say. When I checked a citation on the French Toast page, and noted that the source said the opposite of what Wikipedia did by annotating that citation with [failed verification], an editor showed up to remove that annotation and scold me that the only thing that mattered was whether the source existed, not what it might or might not say.
  - camgunz 2y ago
    I feel like I hear a lot of criticism about Wikipedia editors, but isn't Wikipedia overall pretty good? I'm not gonna defend every editor action or whatever, but I think the product stands for itself.

lupusreal 2y ago

Lies and mistakes persist on Wikipedia for many years. They just need to sound truthy so they don't jump out to Wikipedia power users who aren't familiar with the subject. I've been keeping tabs on one for about five years, and its several years older than that, which I won't correct because I am IP range banned and I don't feel like making an account and dealing with any basement dwelling power editor NEETs who read Wikipedia rules and processes for fun. I know I'm not the only one to, because this glaring error isn't in a particularly obscure niche, its in the article for a certain notorious defense initiative which has been in the news lately, so this error has plenty of eyes on it. In fact, the error might even be a good thing; it reminds attentive readers that Wikipedia is an unreliable source and you always have to check if citations actually say the thing which is being said in the sentence they're attached to.

kragen 2y ago
Maybe you're just wrong about it.