AI finds errors in 90% of Wikipedia's best articles

Comments

• yakko@feddit.uk ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Speaking very generally, it’s still conceding an amount of human intelligence and there are problems with it that are worth talking about, but it’s a use of AI that at least defers to human judgment, and as long as users are still personally researching and writing their own edits I honestly don’t hate it. Much.

  source

  • lime@feddit.nu ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    it’s mostly outsourcing attention, which is pretty acceptable for a large project like wikipedia.

    source

    • yakko@feddit.uk ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Right - I won’t call it a good thing to let people deskill on reading comprehension skills, but they’re donating their labour to a public benefit! I’m hardly going to scold them as if I was their professor.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Bldck@beehaw.org ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      That’s my main use for LLMs

      • I write the code logic, the main argument points, etc
      • let the LLM lint, format and structure the discussion
      • I provide another round of copy editing, styling and other updates

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • HubertManne@piefed.social ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I agree here and this goes back before ai. Any automated thing is fine with humans in the loop but once you take them out is when the trouble starts.

    source
• Qwel@sopuli.xyz ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Most of the errors aren’t so bad, but it’s definitely nice to correct them.

  ---

  You need to know Wikipedia’s system a bit though, because ChatGPT suggests these kind of things:

  Want me to draft a crisp correction note you can paste on the article’s talk page?

  Using LLMs when interacting with other users is “strongly frowned upon”, and you can get banned if you refuse to stop

  source
• UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  I appreciate that you have taken the time to verify and correct them. This is using AI exactly as it is meant to be used for once.

  What you didn’t mention tho: Have you searched these articles for false nagatives? Did you get any false positives? Because the result sounds nice, but it doesn’t have to be.

  If ChatGPT overlooks too many errors, it might improve quality, but at the same time give you a false sense of security/correctness.

  source
• belated_frog_pants@beehaw.org ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  “I used the plagiarism engine to read the freely shared knowledge pool and it said it was wrong”

  source
• OpenStars@piefed.social ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Using ChatGPT to “fix” Wikipedia, what could possibly go wrong? (/s as the approach seems valid, this is just a funny statement)

  source