YHK - yet another hacker news clone

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

"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.

A parrot can be never a true source of information.

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.

Grokipedia serves as an existence proof that it is possible.

Even putting aside accuracy, if the plan is for the tools that verify the written content to be in any shape or form outside of the human loop, then this feels like it glosses over the issues of both passive bias in data & active bias (e.g data filtering etc. ) when training such models that you'd be poisoning this information sources with.

Even subtle bias can manifest in significant ways. Given that the predominant market leaders in producing such models are currently : A country that's attempting to squeeze the word "america" in any geographic formation possible + rewriting history to put itself first, and a country that has perfected censorship en-mass and already actively doctors its own history.

I'm not convinced giving LLMs carte blanche to write authoritative sources on topics that - often are ideologically sensitive/controversial isn't just needlessly reckless and short-sighted. It's not a far reach to imagine such models reflecting the current views of administrations in these countries and becoming reluctant to mention certain colonial ambitions, environmental damage, political corruption, etc. where it might be relevant to authoritative content.

Wikipedia already struggles with issues in idealogical bias from authors - human validation (somewhat)helps mitigate that. You could argue that human validation is still prone to same bias - but you can always draw on a more diverse pool of editors with little ideological overlap. With LLM validation you're pretty much at the mercy of a pretty incestuous pool of data & a handful of self-serving corporates & governments.

Coding and math are easily verifiable, language and prose is not.

As a result, I don't think LLMs will reach this state easily.

I think they have to; while at first glance AI generated content is impressive, it becomes noisy and sameish at larger scale or the more you read it. I'm of the opinion that AI is here to stay and a valuable tool for many use cases, but writing authoritative content ain't it. Wikipedia is fighting it (and other influences from before AI, like unsubstantiated claims and whatnot), I hope the scientific community and journalism steps up too.

Maybe when Steven Pruitt starts hallucinating facts we can make the "both sides" argument. But until then....

> Much of wikipedia is written by one person, Steven Pruitt. He has created more than 33,000 Wikipedia articles.

There are over 7m articles in English Wikipedia.

Note that Pruitt has the highest number of edits on Wikipedia, but not the highest number of created articles.

The problem with AI on Wikipedia is that the reason I've noticed it is because I've just seen blatantly incorrect stuff, mentioned breezily in passing, with no references. It's shitting up a thing that was already pretty easy to shit up if you had a motive, and your changes often wouldn't be noticed for months or years if an article wasn't well-trafficked.

AI doesn't even have a motive, it's just dumb - so you can't even track the mistakes to specific motivated users or networks of users. There's no way to clean it up.

Although I have to agree with you (probably, because I'm going to put words in your mouth) that this is a basic problem with wikipedia and how it is structured and governed, rather than a problem with AI. Anybody could always just put nonsense anywhere at any time; AI is just a chaos monkey. Wikipedia can't rely on groupthink to maintain itself, it has not worked and will not work, chaos monkeys are needed.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Being as detailed as possible is its goal. Simple English Wikipedia exists for shorter easier to read versions of articles. Generally though, turning a complex topic into a fun easy read is the goal of good scientific journalism, which is also important but a separate effort from an encyclopedia.

Same feeling here - not sure if it’s AI, or zealous wikipedians + incentives that make addition easy but editing and pruning means stepping on many other writers turf, but I used to enjoy reading articles, while now many are more useful as “information fodder” for LLM to summarize and interpret.

I don't think it has anything to do with AI. Wikipedia has been like that for at least a decade for me.