31–40 of 99 posts
The Sanderson wiki [1] has a time-travel feature where you read a snapshot just before a publication of a book, ensuring no spoilers. I would like a similar pre-LLM Wikipedia snapshot. Sometimes I would prefer potentially stale or incomplete info rather than have to wade through slop. 1: https://coppermind.net/wiki/Coppermind:Welcome
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's a general guideline to identify "propaganda", regardless of the source. I've seen people in person write such statements with their own hands/fingers, and I know many people who speak like that (shockingly, most of them are in management). Lots of those points seems to get into the same idea which seems like a good balance. It's the language itself that is problematic, not how the text itself came to b…
Wikipedia already has very detailed guidelines on how text on Wikipedia should look, which address many of these problems.[1] For example, take a look at its advice on "puffery"[2]: "Peacock example: Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter. Just the facts: Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, in which he was called "master poet, ca…
https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.23233
I wonder if something more came out of that.
Either way, I think that generation of article text is the least useful and interesting way to use AI on Wikipedia. It's much better to do things like this paper did.
Didn't they just sells access to all the AI giants?
Didn't they just sells access to all the AI giants?
I'm a embarrassed to be associated with US Millennials who are anti AI.
No one cares if you tie your legs together and finish a marathon in 12 hours. Just finish it in 3. Its more impressive.
EDIT:
I suppose people missed the first sentence:
>Isn't having a source the only thing that should be required.
>Isn't having a source the only thing that should be required.
>Isn't having a source the only thing that should be required.
The Sanderson wiki [1] has a time-travel feature where you read a snapshot just before a publication of a book, ensuring no spoilers. I would like a similar pre-LLM Wikipedia snapshot. Sometimes I would prefer potentially stale or incomplete info rather than have to wade through slop. 1: https://coppermind.net/wiki/Coppermind:Welcome
The easiest way to get this is probably Kiwix. You can download a ~100GB file containing all of English Wikipedia as of a particular date, then browse it locally offline. I'm not sure if it's real or not, but the Internet Archive has a listing claiming to be the dump from May 2022: https://archive.org/details/wikipedia_en_all_maxi_2022-05
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WP:BOLD and start your own project to do it.
Or be extra bold, and have an AI bot handle the forum politics associated with being allowed to make nontrivial changes.
I've made a bunch of nontrivial changes (+- 1000s of characters), none of them seems to have been reverted, never asked for permission, I just went ahead and did it. Maybe the topics I care about are so non-controversial no one actually seen it?
Isn't having a source the only thing that should be required. Why is AI speak bad? I'm a embarrassed to be associated with US Millennials who are anti AI. No one cares if you tie your legs together and finish a marathon in 12 hours. Just finish it in 3. Its more impressive. EDIT: I suppose people missed the first sentence: >Isn't having a source the only thing that should be required. >Isn't having a source the only…
It's not inherently bad, but if something was written with AI the chances that it is low effort crap are much much much higher than if someone actually spent time and effort on it.