4 ms·
There’s also the fact that both Wikipedia and LLMs are non-stationary. The quality of wikipedia has grown immensely since its inception and LLMs will get more a
by aabhay 11mo ago
There’s also the fact that both Wikipedia and LLMs are non-stationary. The quality of wikipedia has grown immensely since its inception and LLMs will get more accurate (if not explicitly “smarter”)
- derektank 11mo agoI'm not entirely convinced that the quality of Wikipedia has improved substantially in the last decade.
- vablings 11mo agoCare to provide any counter-examples? Please make it know if you end up using Wikipedia for your source of if Wikipedia's quality has changed
- pessimizer 11mo agoHow in the world would you supply a counter-example for "the quality of Wikipedia has/hasn't improved substantially in the last decade"? I also can't even read the second sentence. I think there are typos there, but there's no mental correction I can do to make it coherent for me.
- jancsika 11mo agoI can't think of a better accidental metric than that! I'll go ahead and speculate that the number of incoherent sentences per article has gone down substantially over the last decade, probably due to the relevant tooling getting better over the same period.
- knollimar 11mo agoKnow should be known
- SJMG 11mo agoI think you would need a complicated set of metrics to claim something like "improved" that wasn't caveated to death. An immediate conflict being total number of articles vs impressions of articles labeled with POV biases. If both go up has the site improved? I find I trust Wikipedia less these days, though still more than LLM output.
- djoldman 11mo agoWikipedia probably wins here because you can link to a permalink version of an article.