21
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2025
21 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
2154 readers
62 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yall ready for another round of LessWrong edit wars on Wikipedia? This time with a wider list of topics!
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/g6rpo6hshodRaaZF3/mech-interp-wiki-page-and-why-you-should-edit-wikipedia-1
On the very slightly merciful upside... the lesswronger recommends "If you want to work on a new page, discuss with the community first by going to the talk page of a related topic or meta-page." and "In general, you shouldn't post before you understand Wikipedia rules, norms, and guidelines." so they are ahead of the previous calls made on Lesswrong for Wikipedia edit-wars.
On the downside, they've got a laundry list of lesswrong jargon they want Wikipedia articles for. Even one of the lesswrongers responding to them points out these terms are a bit on the under-defined side:
Aha so OP is just hoping no one will bother reading the sources listed on the article...
Looking to exploit citogenesis for political gain.
I could imagine a lesswronger being delusional/optimistic enough to assume their lesswrong jargon concepts have more academic citations than a handful of arXiv preprints... but in this case they just admitted otherwise their only sources are lesswrong and arXiv. Also, if they know wikipedia's policies, they should no the No Original Research rule would block their idea even overlooking single source and conflict of interest.
From the comments:
Huh. How oddly sensible.
Ah, never mind.
And looks like dgerad is already on the case and the lesswrongers are aware of it.
o7
I finally steeled myself to look at the page history. After dgerard commented about it, someone else tagged the article for additional problems:
Then a third editor added a section ... made of LLM bullshit.
I'd probably be exaggerating if I said that every time I looked under the hood of Wikipedia, it reaffirmed how I don't have the temperament to edit there. But I wouldn't be exaggerating by much. It's enough of a hassle to agree upon text in a paper co-authored with a colleague I know personally and like. Dealing with posers whose ego pays them by the word... Ugh.
The lesswrongers hate dgerad's Wikipedia work because they perceive it as calling them out, but if anything Wikipedia's norms makes his "call outs" downright gentle and routine.