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•55m ago
You can always read Grokipedia if this feels like a lost opportunity to you.
mihaaly•44m 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•41m 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•40m 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 an interesting idea. It could work, but I don't personally think it would be better than the English Wikipedia.
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?
mschuster91•34m ago
> 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.
Many conservative worldview elements such as climate change denialism, creationism or anti LGBT view (e.g. LGBT being "unnatural") are not backed by reality because they run counter to scientifical consensus. And that's before we go into the outlandish bullshit conspiracy crap like "ZOG/zionist occupied government", "flat earth", "9/11 was faked", "the moon landing was faked" and the likes that gains more and more momentum among "conservative" people.
You cannot make a Wikipedia appealing to conservatives.
imdsm•37m ago
Not sure if you're being snarky or not, but the period at the end makes me think yes
NuclearPM•24m ago
What else would end the sentence?
112233•48m 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•36m ago
What about:
Correct information written by AI vs incorrect, biased information written by humans?
tyromaniac•20m ago
As if AI output isn't biased?
nougati•25m ago
Not sure what question you're supposing he asked which was in the article. OP's point seemed to be that correct words written by a human could be effectively the same as correct words written by a machine, supposing the machine managed to be correct by learning from human content. The 'obvious' part is this wouldn't be true if the AI content was incorrect. At least that is what I got.
clarionbell•36m 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.
Zardoz84•27m ago
A parrot can be never a true source of information.
yreg•23m ago
Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Its editors are parroting secondary sources. (No disrespect intended.) There's no reason why LLMs couldn't be good at that.
I would rather be worried about the quality of all the primary and secondary sources going forward.
kzrdude•7m ago
There is a reason why LLMs can not be good at this: They don't know what they are quoting or citing. A different kind of model with factoid provenance could do it?
rkozik1989•20m ago
That's really not how probabilistic systems work though. They're great at getting 80% of the way to the goal but the last 20% is always excruciatingly difficult. I really don't intend that a knock because LLMs are useful, but they also aren't magic boxes where anything is possible.
account42•19m ago
Yes, why even put the slop on Wikipedia when you can get it directly from the source.
boomlinde•15m ago
LLMs can't know things. They have no concept of veracity. In a place for knowledge they'd better be left out.
oxyg3n•1h ago
boomlinde•55m ago
mihaaly•44m 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•41m 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•40m ago
nextaccountic•36m 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 an interesting idea. It could work, but I don't personally think it would be better than the English Wikipedia.
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?
mschuster91•34m ago
Many conservative worldview elements such as climate change denialism, creationism or anti LGBT view (e.g. LGBT being "unnatural") are not backed by reality because they run counter to scientifical consensus. And that's before we go into the outlandish bullshit conspiracy crap like "ZOG/zionist occupied government", "flat earth", "9/11 was faked", "the moon landing was faked" and the likes that gains more and more momentum among "conservative" people.
You cannot make a Wikipedia appealing to conservatives.
imdsm•37m ago
NuclearPM•24m ago
112233•48m ago
Not to mention this exact question is being discussed in the article.
imdsm•36m ago
Correct information written by AI vs incorrect, biased information written by humans?
tyromaniac•20m ago
nougati•25m ago