31–40 of 104 posts
I saved a full snapshot of Wikipedia (and Stack Overflow) in the weeks before ChatGPT launched, and every day I'm more glad that I did. They will become the Low Background Steel of text.
What do the authors call what they're doing? Magic?
Oh dear lord .... sub heading states - Storm - Assisting in Writing Wikipedia-like Articles From Scratch with Large Language Models Good luck with this storm, wiki's the world over. Just a thought but ... maybe someone should ask an org like the Internet Archive to snap-shot Wikipedia asap and label it Pre-Storm and After-Storm
there is this sentiment of Ai induced deterioration and pollution. what if that is not the case? what if the quality of this type of content actually increases?
On the other, moderation is an unsolved problem. The general mess of the internet is probably not quite ready to be handed a footgun of this caliber.
As with many things tech, some of the outcome falls to us, the techies. We can build systems to help steer this.
Hmm something about this title containing the word 'research' disturbs me. I associate that word with rigorous scientific methods that leads to fact based knowledge or maybe some new hypothesis, not some LLM hallucinating sources, references, quotes and all the other garbage they spit out when challenged over a point of fact. Horrifying to think peeps might turn towards these tools for factual information.
The presence of the word "scientific" in this statement disturbs me.
Imagine an infinite wiki where articles are generated on the fly (from reputable sources - with links), including links to other articles (which are also generated) etc.
I actually like this sort of interface more than chat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ai is not able to create original knowledge The current state of LLMs do hallucinate though. It's just not a very trustworthy source of facts.
just like my first teachers said I should absolutely not use Wikipedia. LLMs was popularized less than 2 years ago. I think it is safe to assume that it will be as trustworthy as you see Wikipedia today, and probably even more as you can embed reasoning techniques into the LLMs to correct misunderstandings. Wikipedia cannot self correct.
Wikipedia is open, like completely open.
GPT is not.
Unless we manage to crack the distributed training / incremental improvement barriers, LLMs are a lot more likely to follow the Google path (that is, start awesome and gradually enshittify as capitalist concerns pollute the decision matrix) than they are the Wikipedia path (gradual improvement as more eyes and minds work to improve them).
Oh dear lord .... sub heading states - Storm - Assisting in Writing Wikipedia-like Articles From Scratch with Large Language Models Good luck with this storm, wiki's the world over. Just a thought but ... maybe someone should ask an org like the Internet Archive to snap-shot Wikipedia asap and label it Pre-Storm and After-Storm
there is this sentiment of Ai induced deterioration and pollution. what if that is not the case? what if the quality of this type of content actually increases?
There's a small ironically funny typo in the first line: knolwedge
I looked into this to see where it was getting new information, and as far as I can tell, it is searching wikipedia exclusively. Useful for sure, but not exactly what I was expecting based on the title.
There are wikipedias in other languages - Maybe this framework could be adapted to translate the search terms, fetch mulitlingual sources, translate them back, and use those as comparisons.
I've found a lot of stuff out through similar by-hand techniques that would be difficult to discover on english search. I'd be curious to see how much differential there is between accounts across language barriers.