This actually reads like it was written by one of those character LLMs
Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology
131–140 of 168 posts
Re: Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology
#132I love Wikipedia, but Wikimedia does not need your donations at all, as much as its misleading ads try to convince you it's on the brink of death. As far as this particular article goes, it just comes off as kind of cringeworthy to me. This is a style of internet humor that went out of fashion about 10 years ago.
The donations are voluntary. I donate money and articles because I've gained so much from having Wikipedia available to me. If they have a big war chest, that's fine, I'll help make it bigger so they don't need to stress about money. If they spend it on some wacky projects, then that's OK too, experimentation is important as well.
Re: Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology
#133Peter Hitchens had a hell of a time trying to fix Wikipedia's appalling biases: https://hitchensblogarchive.wordpress.com/2018/08/06/goodbye... Search the site for other examples of the fun he had with it. I'd choose Wikipedia over AI, of course, so I'm ultimately grateful it's there. But better than both would be a well-edited traditional encyclopedia, written by experts in a single voice, and possibly peer-reviewed…
I decided to look at why the original block happened.. it's on [0], search for "July 2018", then check out administrator's reply, including the links to recent edits.
I had no opinion either way, but wow, I have to agree with the block here. Peter put words like "This was a ridiculous statement" into wikipedia article, which is as far from wikipedia tone as it can get; and then completely failed to understand administrator's advice on the tone.
If you want to show wikipedia has problems, you might want to choose some other example.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clockba...
Re: Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology
#134Especially relevant today with the release of grokipedia
Someone please enlighten me: what is the point of an AI-generated Wikipedia when we're all now using (Wikipedia-trained) AIs directly instead of Wikipedias?
Safe space for Musk. He's been upset about Wikipedia for years (I suspect because it refuses to buy into his headcanon that he founded Tesla.)
Re: Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s so good. I spent 2 hours reading articles on there last night and the consistency was excellent, although a little verbose at times.
I checked it out based on this comment. It's funny how in some ways it feels like a lazy student-assignment copied from Wikipedia: the subheadings and the structure are exactly the same as the Wikipedia article on the topic, and sometimes it even leaves in the citation numbers as normal text like a careless copy paste. However, it also seemed less eurocentric, mentioning non-Greek non-Roman side of origins of fields…
If I was rewriting Wikipedia pages with an LLM I'd maybe use all the different languages' Wikipedias as input.
Re: Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would really, really like to see the prompts used for this next to each article. Since "The Algorithm" at Twitter was supposed to be open sourced, surely that wouldn't be controversial. And I genuinely do find it absolutely fascinating and somewhat shocking how LLMs can follow such long and complex prompts and respond so well.
[flagged]
It would be genuinely interesting to know if it was that generic or if it had special sauce for certain subjects.
For example, Ask Grok allegedly uses this system prompt: https://github.com/xai-org/grok-prompts/blob/main/ask_grok_s... Which does seem very neutral. So then then question is have they encoded bias at a much deeper level directly in the training data or what?
A contrarian might say that maybe is really is unbiased and we're so used to the Woke Left that reality sounds right-wing.
To which I'd say it seems unlikely that Goering gets an "Economic Achievements" section, Goebbels gets "Intellectual Contributions" and none of Greta Thunberg, Nelson Mandela nor Martin Luther King have any positive-sounding top level section.
I also do not think that the oddly semantically empty sign off from Reinhard Heydrich is a fair extract of the article that it cites as a source:
> Ultimately, while atrocities are verifiably tied to his commands, the net efficiency in quelling domestic threats arguably prolonged Nazi governance, a trade-off debated in terms of causal realism versus moral absolutism.[20](https://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-heydrich....)
Re: Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology
#137Peter Hitchens had a hell of a time trying to fix Wikipedia's appalling biases: https://hitchensblogarchive.wordpress.com/2018/08/06/goodbye... Search the site for other examples of the fun he had with it. I'd choose Wikipedia over AI, of course, so I'm ultimately grateful it's there. But better than both would be a well-edited traditional encyclopedia, written by experts in a single voice, and possibly peer-reviewed…
I don't know the details but amongst his views apparently is:
>Hitchens has frequently rejected the scientific consensus that human activity is linked to global warming, stating that “there is no proof that this is so”
I wonder if that relates to one of the appalling biases he tried to fix? I'm ok with a bias towards scientific accuracy myself.
Re: Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology
#138I love Wikipedia, but Wikimedia does not need your donations at all, as much as its misleading ads try to convince you it's on the brink of death. As far as this particular article goes, it just comes off as kind of cringeworthy to me. This is a style of internet humor that went out of fashion about 10 years ago.
The donations are voluntary. I donate money and articles because I've gained so much from having Wikipedia available to me. If they have a big war chest, that's fine, I'll help make it bigger so they don't need to stress about money. If they spend it on some wacky projects, then that's OK too, experimentation is important as well.
[flagged]
Re: Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology
#139With some controversial topics like Nuclear Power on the German wikipedia or the Gaza conflict on the English one, wikipedia has become less than useless. Once an activist editor sith too much time gets hold of a page, it is game over for neutrality of wokipedia. Grokipedia might introduce some much needed competition.
I glanced at the Gaza stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_conflict and it seemed quite a reasonable summary. What makes it useless? Any facts wrong?
I'm kind of neutral on the conflict and genuinely curious.
About the only bit of Wikipedia I've come across that I feel is inaccurate due to editorial policy is on covid origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2
>While other explanations, such as speculations that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a laboratory have been proposed, such explanations are not supported by evidence.
Which I don't think is true.
Re: Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology
#140Wikipedia does not conduct scientific research or fact-finding. It's only a publisher. It routinely sources citations from books, journals and other sources, many of them produced by members of the "global academic, scientfic ... community"
Without those sources Wikipedia would have relatively little value, except to quote and cite to web pages
In many (most) fieds, web pages are not a substitute for scientific journals or books from academic publishers