3 ms·
We can call wikipedia content facts by consensus. It's hard to say the same for LLMs since the input is not curated for accuracy, even though the wikipedia cont
by glitchc 1y ago
We can call wikipedia content facts by consensus. It's hard to say the same for LLMs since the input is not curated for accuracy, even though the wikipedia content is a subset of the entire training corpus.
In short, the curation is the key differentiator between the two.
- drdaeman 1y ago> not curated for accuracy I thought accuracy is one of metrics that the models are trained for…
- charcircuit 1y agoConsensus of what the news media says. Wikipedia doesn't actually care if the content is true.
- amiga386 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability > Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight. Wikipedia cares that its contents are taken from reliable sources, which can be independently verified. Not all news media are reliable sources, and in fact academic papers and journals and published books are generally more reliable than news media.
- bee_rider 1y agoDoes Wikipedia actually require a consensus? I could swear I’ve seen articles with “controversy” sections. I think they just require some at least minimally respectable sources… As far as actual truth… that seems beyond their ability to evaluate.
- Gander5739 1y agoWikipedia just requires that all mainstream views are represented proportionate to how widely they are held. As an aside, controversy sections are discouraged because they tend to give too much weight to the controversies.
- codyswann 1y agoEven if everyone on earth agrees with an opinion, it's still an opinion. There is a material difference between a fact and an opinion.