805
We will use Grok 3.5 (maybe we should call it 4), which has advanced reasoning, to rewrite the entire corpus of human knowledge, adding missing information and deleting errors.
Then retrain on that.
Far too much garbage in any foundation model trained on uncorrected data.
More Context
Wikipedia gives lists of their sources, judge what you read based off of that. Or just skip to the sources and read them instead.
Just because Wikipedia offers a list of references doesn't mean that those references reflect what knowledge is actually out there. Wikipedia is trying to be academically rigorous without any of the real work. A big part of doing academic research is reading articles and studies that are wrong or which prove the null hypothesis. That's why we need experts and not just an AI to regurgitate information. Wikipedia is useful if people understand it's limitations, I think a lot of people don't though.
For sure, Wikipedia is for the most basic subjects to research, or the first step of doing any research (they could still offer helpful sources) . For basic stuff, or quick glances of something for conversation.
This very much depends on the subject, I suspect. For math or computer science, wikipedia is an excellent source, and the credentials of the editors maintaining those areas are formidable (to say the least). Their explanations of the underlaying mechanisms are in my experience a little variable in quality, but I haven't found one that's even close to outright wrong.
Yeah because 1. obviously this is what everybody does. And 2. Just because sources are provided does not mean they are in any way balanced.
The fact that you would consider this sort of response acceptable justification of wikipedia might indicate just how weak wikipedia is.
Edit - if only you could downvote reality away.