Isn't this a losing battle? Since the goal post keeps moving as new LLM comes out each month.
Wikipedia: WikiProject AI Cleanup
91–99 of 99 posts
Re: Wikipedia: WikiProject AI Cleanup
#92Humorous that Wikipedia is attempting to force out AI while Grokipedia (https://grokipedia.com/) is trying to replace wikipedia with AI. I'll be fun to see how each methodology pans out
Re: Wikipedia: WikiProject AI Cleanup
#93Isn'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…
> Why is AI speak bad 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.
It is inherently bad, because it encourages people to skim over its output and miss hallucinations. The point of AI is “saving time” so obviously you’re not meant to look too close at the output, but you have to anyway. So it’s just a big waste of time.
Re: Wikipedia: WikiProject AI Cleanup
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI is perfectly suited to fixing this problem. I recently spent several hours rewriting a somewhat important article. I did not add or subtract information from the article, I simply made it clearer and more concise. I'm confused by this. Is this written by an AI? > Repetition and redundancy, ambiguity, illogical ordering of content, rambling sentences, opaque grammar. This pile of words is missing a verb. "You" (w…
Hard to explain the hostility here. I simply outlined my opinion ("take") and backed it up with reasons. I have been a Wikipedia editor for well over 20 years. That should not be relevant to my argument.
Why shouldn't it be relevant?
The example you put forth supporting your claim that AI is perfect for Wikipedia editing is that you (ambiguously) edited an article, perhaps using AI.
The post also reads like it was partially written with AI.
I'm sorry you see my response as hostile, but I hope you can see how this example isn't accomplishing your intended rhetorical goals.
Re: Wikipedia: WikiProject AI Cleanup
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI is perfectly suited to fixing this problem. I recently spent several hours rewriting a somewhat important article. I did not add or subtract information from the article, I simply made it clearer and more concise. I'm confused by this. Is this written by an AI? > Repetition and redundancy, ambiguity, illogical ordering of content, rambling sentences, opaque grammar. This pile of words is missing a verb. "You" (w…
> This pile of words is missing a verb. And yet is completely understandable.
And also entirely ironic.
> Repetition and redundancy, ambiguity, illogical ordering of content, rambling sentences, opaque grammar.
Repetition AND redundancy?
Illogical ordering in an unordered list of things.
Rambling (could be more items or less).
What's the grammar of a sentence like this? Diagramming it would be a challenge. I'd call that opaque.
Re: Wikipedia: WikiProject AI Cleanup
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you mean the left leaning tone / bias, that will be a bit more spicy. But general grammar, tone, ambiguity , superlatives – that’s the goal of copy editing No, no I mainly mean non-neutral phrasing and/or too personal. Especially for people’s articles. (“And they released that greeeat album! But unfortunately the critics did not understand them… Booh!)
I agree. Wikipedia Cleanup is a good starting point. Or look for a Wiki Project to join. I've found the best way to learn and contribute is to jump into an existing project. Usually direction is the hardest thing . You can of course dive into an article and make changes, but you'll often get pushback (warranted or unwarranted) and that can be discouraging. It's a somewhat natural feedback loop.
Pure styling work is boring and not worth human time anymore (for "good enough" result, starting from bad) IMO, considering how "good" AI has become to that (while still being assisted).
Re: Wikipedia: WikiProject AI Cleanup
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. Wikipedia Cleanup is a good starting point. Or look for a Wiki Project to join. I've found the best way to learn and contribute is to jump into an existing project. Usually direction is the hardest thing . You can of course dive into an article and make changes, but you'll often get pushback (warranted or unwarranted) and that can be discouraging. It's a somewhat natural feedback loop.
Pure styling work is boring and not worth human time anymore (for "good enough" result, starting from bad) IMO, considering how "good" AI has become to that (while still being assisted).
it can be a good way to practice automation and AI workflows.
Re: Wikipedia: WikiProject AI Cleanup
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hard to explain the hostility here. I simply outlined my opinion ("take") and backed it up with reasons. I have been a Wikipedia editor for well over 20 years. That should not be relevant to my argument.
Why shouldn't it be relevant? The example you put forth supporting your claim that AI is perfect for Wikipedia editing is that you (ambiguously) edited an article, perhaps using AI. The post also reads like it was partially written with AI. I'm sorry you see my response as hostile, but I hope you can see how this example isn't accomplishing your intended rhetorical goals.
It shouldn't be relevant because it's an argument from authority, and one that I can't even prove.
Meanwhile, my actual argument (which, like my Wikipedia contributions, involved no help from AI) was reasoned.
The real issue is that you (alone in this thread, I might add) are not taking my argument at face value. Indeed you seem to be accusing me of dishonesty. I must admit that I've never understood this kind of cynicism. I personally find it very easy to assume good faith on the part of others (which, incidentally, is a community rule here.). Anyway, that's all I have to say.
Re: Wikipedia: WikiProject AI Cleanup
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why shouldn't it be relevant? The example you put forth supporting your claim that AI is perfect for Wikipedia editing is that you (ambiguously) edited an article, perhaps using AI. The post also reads like it was partially written with AI. I'm sorry you see my response as hostile, but I hope you can see how this example isn't accomplishing your intended rhetorical goals.
It shouldn't be relevant because it's an argument from authority, and one that I can't even prove. Meanwhile, my actual argument (which, like my Wikipedia contributions, involved no help from AI) was reasoned . The real issue is that you (alone in this thread, I might add) are not taking my argument at face value. Indeed you seem to be accusing me of dishonesty. I must admit that I've never understood this kind of cy…
I'm not accusing you of dishonesty, I just don't understand the evidence you're putting forward to support your claim.
Have you, as an experienced Wikipedia editor ever used AI to revise articles? What was your experience?
Telling a story about editing an article once and thinking that AI could do it isn't as compelling.
Establishing ethos isn't the same thing as an appeal to authority.