the thing is: if AI-Generated Content (if correct, obviously) is just some topics learnt from humans, what's the difference between something correct written by a machine and something correct written by a human?
boomlinde•22m ago
You can always read Grokipedia if this feels like a lost opportunity to you.
mihaaly•12m ago
Why to multiply instead of going to the same place for knowledge? It is almost like you want to make a different Wikipedia for conservatives and liberals because one cannot tolerate a tone or style of the other. Probably we should dedicate dozens of sites for the same topic depending on the writing styles of the humans too. There are a few out there.
In worst case we might have an 'AI language' (or languages) instead, so the sensitive souls could find a safe heaven from it elsewhere, choosing something else. Perhaps one along the idea of 'simple English', have it 'AI English'. Or something else satisfies those looking for a specific way of delivery they can handle exclusively.
I think knowledge is the important here, not the tone.
bananaflag•9m ago
> Why to multiply instead of going to the same place for knowledge?
Why write more than a book instead of just putting everything into one book?
This is a way of thinking from which it is hard to get out, I have no idea how to point it to you.
motionlessveloc•8m ago
In case you were not aware, Grokipedia is not merely "conservative", but literally AI generated.
Honestly Wikipedia is just fine being written by humans. It's not the lack of copy that is holding Wikipedia back.
However,
> Perhaps one along the idea of 'simple English', have it 'AI English'.
That's actually a great idea. But, I don't think it would be better.
Also, are you expecting that humans would still be on the loop by deciding what gets added to AI English Wikipedia, or you think that LLMs should get to decide that too?
imdsm•5m ago
Not sure if you're being snarky or not, but the period at the end makes me think yes
112233•16m ago
"if correct, obviously" - please elaborate. I do not see how this is obvious. Or how being correct is obvious.
Not to mention this exact question is being discussed in the article.
imdsm•4m ago
What about:
Correct information written by AI vs incorrect, biased information written by humans?
clarionbell•3m ago
There will be a point in the future, possibly near future, when AI will be capable of reliably producing encyclopedic content, and we'll have tools to verify that the content produced passes reasonable standards.
Today is not the day. Especially not regarding the verification.
oxyg3n•49m ago
boomlinde•22m ago
mihaaly•12m ago
In worst case we might have an 'AI language' (or languages) instead, so the sensitive souls could find a safe heaven from it elsewhere, choosing something else. Perhaps one along the idea of 'simple English', have it 'AI English'. Or something else satisfies those looking for a specific way of delivery they can handle exclusively.
I think knowledge is the important here, not the tone.
bananaflag•9m ago
Why write more than a book instead of just putting everything into one book?
This is a way of thinking from which it is hard to get out, I have no idea how to point it to you.
motionlessveloc•8m ago
nextaccountic•4m ago
Honestly Wikipedia is just fine being written by humans. It's not the lack of copy that is holding Wikipedia back.
However,
> Perhaps one along the idea of 'simple English', have it 'AI English'.
That's actually a great idea. But, I don't think it would be better.
Also, are you expecting that humans would still be on the loop by deciding what gets added to AI English Wikipedia, or you think that LLMs should get to decide that too?
imdsm•5m ago
112233•16m ago
Not to mention this exact question is being discussed in the article.
imdsm•4m ago
Correct information written by AI vs incorrect, biased information written by humans?