4 ms·

"Yuck": Wikipedia pauses AI summaries after editor revolt

• JohnFen 1y ago
  My experience with AI summaries is that they're too unreliable to be useful. Sometimes they're fine, sometimes they're way off base. I agree with the sentiments of some of the editors that their inclusion tends to be a signal of poor quality.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• bundie 1y ago
  Dupe (11 points, 2 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44251089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44251089
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• AshamedCaptain 1y ago
  The example chosen by Ars is already great enough to exemplify why this has been the worst idea ever. Not only the "AI" summary of Dopamine is basically the same as the first paragraph in the article; in addition, you can clearly see the editors have gone through great lengths to avoid saying the extremely common but also wrong misconception that it creates pleasure. The AI, however, goes straight and mentions it in the 3rd sentence, even when the supposedly source article practically says the opposite. The AI summary is also full of fluffy, meaningless questionable sentences (e.g. "highlighting its importance" -- really?). Useless (redundant with the carefully edited summaries from the editors), wrong (incredibly so), and a total waste of resources for everyone involved.