YHK - yet another hacker news clone

Wikipedia's Cleanup of AI-Generated Content

39 points rbanffy 1 hour ago 16 comments

oxyg3n 1 hour ago | parent

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 34 minutes ago | parent

You can always read Grokipedia if this feels like a lost opportunity to you.

mihaaly 23 minutes ago | parent

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 20 minutes ago | parent

> 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 19 minutes ago | parent

In case you were not aware, Grokipedia is not merely "conservative", but literally AI generated.

nextaccountic 15 minutes ago | parent

There is already a different Wikipedia for conservatives, https://www.conservapedia.com

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 13 minutes ago | parent

> 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 16 minutes ago | parent

Not sure if you're being snarky or not, but the period at the end makes me think yes

112233 27 minutes ago | parent

"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 15 minutes ago | parent

What about:

Correct information written by AI vs incorrect, biased information written by humans?

nougati 4 minutes ago | parent

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 15 minutes ago | parent

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 5 minutes ago | parent

A parrot can be never a true source of information.

975357985 5 minutes ago | parent

Yawn