171–180 of 301 posts
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
This post is unavailable in a... peculiar way: $ curl -I https://castlebridge.ie/insights/chatgpt-and-the-enshittening-of-knowledge/ HTTP/2 302 server: nginx date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 16:53:41 GMT content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 content-length: 282 location: http://google.com If this is hosting provider's response to HN death hug, it's very poorly executed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
It's not the same. This is something I've observed many times but have never quite been able to put a name to it. 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 t…
Wikipedia already does organization- and source-level IP blocking for input sources that have proven sufficiently malicious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Automation and scale create their own threats. Security cameras have existed for a long time, but storage cheap enough to keep years of footage and algorithms capable of processing thousands of streams in real time create massive privacy problems that didn't exist even with the richest companies paying humans to watch.
>Automation and scale create their own threats. I don't know why such a simple fact needs to be repeated over and over again. It's either naivete or malice that makes people ignore that fact. A change in scale can easily lead to a change in kind. A party popper and a flashbang are functionally the same thing, but their scale makes them have wildly different implications.
What a fantastic example. Borrowing this for sure.
This post is unavailable in a... peculiar way: $ curl -I https://castlebridge.ie/insights/chatgpt-and-the-enshittening-of-knowledge/ HTTP/2 302 server: nginx date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 16:53:41 GMT content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 content-length: 282 location: http://google.com If this is hosting provider's response to HN death hug, it's very poorly executed.
This post is unavailable in a... peculiar way: $ curl -I https://castlebridge.ie/insights/chatgpt-and-the-enshittening-of-knowledge/ HTTP/2 302 server: nginx date: Fri, 27 Jan 2023 16:53:41 GMT content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 content-length: 282 location: http://google.com If this is hosting provider's response to HN death hug, it's very poorly executed.
Tangentially related: does anyone else feel like ChatGPT's default voice is just... super bland? I read the "op-ed" the author linked in the article (https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/12/9/porios-chatgpt-...), and the writing style lacks the kind of variation in structure (or content, really) that keeps opinion pieces interesting. It feels like a polished middle-school essay.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:...
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 completely agree that Wikipedia can have errors, but in topics that I am educated in it seems pretty decent and I can't remember the last time I came across any (comp sci for example). The most recent example I can think of is about is an article on vulture bees, and a citation about what their honey tastes like, wh…
> 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…