Not sure about Wikipedia, but Conservapedia would find it very useful. In fact, since most of their entries are factually incorrect and appear as fantasy I think AI writing articles would save them a lot of time.
Bonus: hallucinations can help create new conspiracy theories!
Important context: he’s not suggesting AIs writing content for Wikipedia. He’s suggesting using AI to provide feedback for new editors. Take that how you will.
Right, which makes it just as bad. Wikipedia had enough proofreaders. You don't need AI for that, because the need is already filled.
This is entirely different from a book writer who is going everything solo and has exactly one publishing window.
And writing feedback software has existed for decades. So AI adds nothing new. Again it is snake oil. It is always snake oil. Except when it's bait and switch, to pretend it wasn't snake oil in the first place.
tbh i somehow didnt even realize that wikipedia is one of the few super popular sites not trying to shove ai down my throat every 5 seconds
i'm grateful now
So I fed the page to ChatGPT to ask for advice. And I got what seems to me to be pretty good. And so I'm wondering if we might start to think about how a tool like AFCH might be improved so that instead of a generic template, a new editor gets actual advice. It would be better, obviously, if we had lovingly crafted human responses to every situation like this, but we all know that the volunteers who are dealing with a high volume of various situations can't reasonably have time to do it. The templates are helpful - an AI-written note could be even more helpful.
This actually sounds like a plausibly decent use for an LLM. Initial revision to take some of the load off from the human review process isn't a bad idea - he isn't advocating for AI to write articles, just that it can be useful for copy-editing and potentially supplement a system already heavy in Go/No Go evaluations.
Which is weird, really. Jimmy Wales is just fucking awful. I didn't realize he was anatomically capable of not talking out of his ass.
Christ, I miss when I could click on an article and not be asked to sign up for it.
You know, I remember way back in the day when…
#Interested in reading the rest of this comment?
Please sign up with your name, DOB, banking information, list of valuables, times you’re away from home, and an outline of your house key to “Yaztromo@lemmy.world”. It’s quick, easy, and fun!
…and that’s why I’m no longer welcome in New Zealand. Crazy!
Oh, right! Thanks for reminding me. I tried to archive it the last time but it took forever.
Edit. There ya' go: https://archive.is/oWcIr
As I have adblock mostly because of the abuse of trackers, I understand people trying to monetize their work.
Journalists monetizing their work is totally reasonable. The problem for me is that it seems unfair to ask that literally everyone trying to read an article have to sign up. Maybe I’m missing something.
Fuck AI
He can also stick AI inside his own ass
He is nobody to Wikipedia now. He also failed to create a news site and a micro SNS.
I will stop donating to Wikipedia if they use AI
Wikipedia already has a decades operating cost of savings.
No they don't because they blast it on inflated exec wages.
This is such a tiresome aspect of society. Even if you believe in executives, they certainly don’t need to get paid more than anyone else.
Why don't they blast execs and reduce the expenses.
What's funny is that for enormous big systems with network effects we are trying to use mechanisms intended for smaller businesses, like a hot dog kiosk.
IRL we have a thing for those, it's called democracy.
In the Internet it's either anarchy or monarchy, sometimes bureaucratic dictatorship, but in that area even Soviet-style collegial rule is something not yet present.
I'm recently read that McPherson article about Unix and racism, and how our whole perception of correct computing (modularity, encapsulation, object-orientation, all the KISS philosophy even) is based on that time's changes in the society and reaction to those. I mean, real world is continuous and you can quantize it into discrete elements in many ways. Some unfit for your task. All unfit for some task.
So - first, I like the Usenet model.
Second, cryptography is good.
Third, cryptographic ownership of a limited resource is ... fine, blockchains are maybe not so stupid. But not really necessary, because one can choose between a few versions of the same article retrieved, based on web of trust or whatever else. No need to have only one right version.
Fourth, we already have a way to turn sequence of interdependent actions into state information, it's called a filesystem.
Fifth, Unix with its hierarchies is really not the only thing in existence, there's BTRON, and even BeOS had a tagged filesystem.
Sixth, interop and transparency are possible with cryptography.
Seventh, all these also apply to a hypothetical service over global network.
Eighth, of course, is that the global network doesn't have to be globally visible\addressable to operate globally for spreading data, so even the Internet itself is not as much needed as the actual connectivity over which those change messages will propagate where needed and synchronize.
Ninth, for Wikipedia you don't need as much storage as for, say, Internet Archive.
And tenth - with all these one can make a Wikipedia-like decentralized system with democratic government, based on rather primitive principles, other than, of course, cryptography involved.
(Yes, Briar impressed me.)
EDIT: Oh, about democracy - I mean technical democracy. That an event (making any change) weren't valid if not processed correctly, by people eligible for signing it, for example, and they are made eligible by a signed appointment, and those signing it are made eligible by a democratic process (signed by majority of some body, signed in turn). That's that blockchain democracy people dreamed at some point. Maybe that's not a scam. Just haven't been done yet.
jimmy wales is also the president and co-founder of fandom
to give you an idea of who that guy is
I mean, the Wikipedia page does say it was sold in 2018. Not sure how it was before but it's not surprising that it enshittified by now.
I guess in his defense it wasn't too bad before 2018, as far as I can remember. Most of the enshittification of fandom I can remember has happened since.
Wales’s quote isn’t nearly as bad as the byline makes it out to be:
Wales explains that the article was originally rejected several years ago, then someone tried to improve it, resubmitted it, and got the same exact template rejection again.
“It's a form letter response that might as well be ‘Computer says no’ (that article's worth a read if you don't know the expression),” Wales said. “It wasn't a computer who says no, but a human using AFCH, a helper script [...] In order to try to help, I personally felt at a loss. I am not sure what the rejection referred to specifically. So I fed the page to ChatGPT to ask for advice. And I got what seems to me to be pretty good. And so I'm wondering if we might start to think about how a tool like AFCH might be improved so that instead of a generic template, a new editor gets actual advice. It would be better, obviously, if we had lovingly crafted human responses to every situation like this, but we all know that the volunteers who are dealing with a high volume of various situations can't reasonably have time to do it. The templates are helpful - an AI-written note could be even more helpful.”
That being said, it still reeks of “CEO Speak.” And trying to find a place to shove AI in.
More NLP could absolutely be useful to Wikipedia, especially for flagging spam and malicious edits for human editors to review. This is an excellent task for dirt cheap, small and open models, where an error rate isn’t super important. Cost, volume, and reducing stress on precious human editors is. It's a existential issue that needs work.
…Using an expensive, proprietary API to give error prone yet “pretty good” sounding suggestions to new editors is not.
Wasting dev time trying to make it work is not.
This is the problem. Not natural language processing itself, but the seemingly contagious compulsion among executives to find some place to shove it when the technical extent of their knowledge is occasionally typing something into ChatGPT.
It’s okay for them to not really understand it.
It’s not okay to push it differently than other technology because “AI” is somehow super special and trendy.
That being said, it still wreaks of “CEO Speak.”
I think you mean reeks, which means to stink, having a foul odor.
Those homophones have reeked havoc for too long!
This is another reason why I hate bubbles. There is something potentially useful in here. It needs to be considered very carefully. However, it gets to a point where everyone's kneejerk reaction is that it's bad.
I can't even say that people are wrong for feeling that way. The AI bubble has affected our economy and lives in a multitude of ways that go far beyond any reasonable use. I don't blame anyone for saying "everything under this is bad, period". The reasonable uses of it are so buried in shit that I don't expect people to even bother trying to reach into that muck to clean it off.
Sit down Jimmy. Wikipedia has enough problems already, it doesn't need more to be added by AI.
if jimmy wales puts ai in wikipedia i stg imma scream
The editor community rejected the idea so overwhelmingly, that Wikipedia paused the planned experiment in June, hopefully for good.
Remember you can download all of Wikipedia in your language and safely store it on a drive buried in your backyard, for after they rewrite history and eliminate freedom of speech.
By downloading it every month and seeding its torrent (totally legal!), you are also helping to keep Wikimedia accountable by providing competition.
Honestly, translating the good articles from other languages would improve Wikipedia immensely.
For example, the Nanjing dialect article is pretty bare in English and very detailed in Mandarin
You can do that, that's fine. As long as you can verify it is an accurate translation, so you need to know the subject matter and the target language.
But you could probably also have used Google translate and then just fine tune the output yourself. Anyone could have done that at any point in the last 10 years.
As long as you can verify it is an accurate translation
Unless the process has changed in the last decade, article translations are a multi-step process, which includes translators and proof-readers. It's easier to get volunteer proof-readers than volunteer translators. Adding AI for the translation step, but keeping the proof-reading step should be a great help.
But you could probably also have used Google translate and then just fine tune the output yourself. Anyone could have done that at any point in the last 10 years.
Have you ever used Google translate? Putting an entire Wikipedia article through it and then "fine tuning" it would be more work than translating it from scratch. Absolutely no comparison between Google translate and AI translations.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
