3 ms·
Wikipedia is overall pretty good, but it sometimes contains erroneous information. LLMs are overall pretty good, but they sometimes contain erroneous informatio
by gonzobonzo 2y ago
Wikipedia is overall pretty good, but it sometimes contains erroneous information. LLMs are overall pretty good, but they sometimes contain erroneous information.
The weird part is when people get really concerned that someone might treat the former as a reliable source, but then turn around and argue that people should treat the latter as a reliable source.
- camgunz 2y agoI had a moment of pique where I was just gonna copy paste my reply to this rehash of your original point that is non-responsive to what I wrote, but I've found myself. Instead, I will link to the Wikipedia article for Equivocation [0] and ChatGPT's answer to "are wikipedia and LLMs alike?" [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation [1]: https://chatgpt.com/share/67e6adf3-3598-8003-8ccd-68564b7194d8 https://chatgpt.com/share/67e6adf3-3598-8003-8ccd-68564b7194...
- kragen 2y agoWikipedia occasionally has errors, which are usually minor. The LLMs I've tried occasionally get things right, but mostly emit limitless streams of plausible-sounding lies. Your comment paints them as much more similar than they are.
- thaumasiotes 2y agoIn my experience, it's really common for wikipedia to have errors, but it's true that they tend to be minor. And yes, LLMs mostly just produce crazy gibberish. They're clearly worse than wikipedia. But I don't think wikipedia is meeting a standard it should be proud of.
- kragen 2y agoYes, I agree. What kind of institution do you think could do better?