161–170 of 301 posts
In the near-term, AI will just accelerate the winner-take-all nature of our economy.
If you think of the knowledge base of the internet as a living thing, ChatGPT is a like a virus that now threatens its life. This is the same process SEO spam caused for search - it hampers the nature by which things function and the river needs to reroute (pagerank then usage metadata) to replace the lost signal. ChatGPT is more of an existential threat because it will propagate to infect other knowledge bases. Luke…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's true though, Wikipedia really is terrible and full of fake citations that lead nowhere. It's an anti-knowledge base that sometimes has good information. Yeah, Wikipedia is garbage puffed up beyond all belief. I literally just today saw something just like you describe. It should be viewed very skeptically on anything anyone disagrees over (because then it's just snapshots of an agenda-pushing battle).
Did you take a moment to improve the article you had an issue with? That's kind of the point...
Someone gave an example above where a person calling herself a trained Marxist was not accepted as evidence that she is a Marxist. Do you seriously think that editing the article to include the reference would be allowed?
Furthermore, the point is that Wikipedia has a systematic problem. Individual instances that people point out are examples. It would be impossible to fix the whole problem yourself and saying "that example doesn't count because you can fix it yourself" is just a way of ignoring examples, not dealing with the problem.
If you think of the knowledge base of the internet as a living thing, ChatGPT is a like a virus that now threatens its life. This is the same process SEO spam caused for search - it hampers the nature by which things function and the river needs to reroute (pagerank then usage metadata) to replace the lost signal. ChatGPT is more of an existential threat because it will propagate to infect other knowledge bases. Luke…
> ChatGPT is more of an existential threat because it will propagate to infect other knowledge bases. Luke Wikipedia relies on "published" facts as an authority, but ChatGPT output is going to wind up as a source one way or another. And worse, then ChatGPT will digest its own excrement, worsening its own results further. This is what people do collectively, long before any GPTs were in sight. Lots of strong convictio…
When you lower the friction of an action sufficiently, it causes a qualitative change in the emergent behavior of the whole system. It's like how a little damping means the difference between a bridge you can safely drive over versus a galloping Gertie that resonates until it collapses.
When a human has to choose and put some effort into regurgitating a piece of information, there is a natural decay factor in the system where people will sometimes not bother to repeat something if it doesn't seem valuable enough to them. Sure, things like urban legends and old wive's tales exploit bugs in our information prioritization. But, overall, it has the effect of slowly winnowing out nonsense, misinformation, and other low value stuff. Meanwhile, information that continues to be useful continues to be worth the effort of repeating.
Compared to the print and in-person worlds before, things got much worse just with social media where a human was still in the loop but the effort to rebroadcast was nil. This is exactly why we saw a massive rise in misinformation in the past couple of decades.
With ChatGPT and humans completely out of the loop, we will turn our information systems into galloping Gertie and they will resonate with nonsense and lies until the whole system falls apart.
We are witnessing the first cracks now. Look at George Santos, a candidate who absolutely should have never won a single election but managed to because information pipelines about candidates are so polluted with junk and nonsense that voters didn't even realize he was a con man. Not even a sophisticated one, just a huckster able to hide within the sea of information noise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Could you elaborate on this? If it is full of garbage a couple examples should be very easy to find. I could give examples but I won't, because that would link my HN and Wikipedia accounts. > So "garbage puffed up beyond all belief" and "full of terrible and fake citations that lead to nowhere" sounds a bit hyperbolic, tbh. People unironically describe it as the "sum of all human knowledge," so it's definitely puff…
THIS: "people with weird personalities" Seen it way too many times for it to be a coincidence.
It's definitely not a coincidence. Wikipedia is structured to actively select for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were they right, though? I am pretty sure I've seen research that compared the scope and accuracy of both and wikipedia was miles ahead.
In most areas you're correct, but the political slant/bias of Wikipedia is fairly blatant and is getting worse. See for example: https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/41946110
The real political slant is put on Wikipedia by governments and companies that are willing to consistently employ people to cultivate and maintain bias (and to provide the technical support to prevent them being easily caught.) They make sure certain things aren't mentioned in particular articles i.e. when they are added they delete them, and when those deletions are controversial, they take advantage of the pseudononymous voting system. They reinsert untruths (and in the worst cases can even commission references for them.) They pay attention to articles that are rarely visited by experts, or rarely visited at all, to make sure that when the article subject is in the news, the first facts that people find are friendly facts (which then shapes the news coverage, and an instant POV for lazy pundits.)
The public really has no chance against this; the only time that bad actors run into serious difficulties is when they encounter their own counterparts, working for their enemies.
Wikipedia's failure mode is the same as Reddit's, or any other forum that allows anonymous control over content or moderation. It's cheap for hugely resourced governments, companies, and individuals to take it over. The price of one tank would keep a thousand distortions on Wikipedia indefinitely.
If you think of the knowledge base of the internet as a living thing, ChatGPT is a like a virus that now threatens its life. This is the same process SEO spam caused for search - it hampers the nature by which things function and the river needs to reroute (pagerank then usage metadata) to replace the lost signal. ChatGPT is more of an existential threat because it will propagate to infect other knowledge bases. Luke…
> ChatGPT is more of an existential threat because it will propagate to infect other knowledge bases. Luke Wikipedia relies on "published" facts as an authority, but ChatGPT output is going to wind up as a source one way or another. And worse, then ChatGPT will digest its own excrement, worsening its own results further. This is what people do collectively, long before any GPTs were in sight. Lots of strong convictio…