Wikipedia has banned AI-generated text, with two exceptions : technology

[-] infeeeee@lemmy.zip 408 points 2 months ago

Saved you a click:

After much debate, the new policy is in effect: Wikipedia authors are not allowed to use LLMs for generating or rewriting article content. There are two primary exceptions, though.

First, editors can use LLMs to suggest refinements to their own writing, as long as the edits are checked for accuracy. In other words, it’s being treated like any other grammar checker or writing assistance tool. The policy says, “ LLMs can go beyond what you ask of them and change the meaning of the text such that it is not supported by the sources cited.”

The second exemption for LLMs is with translation assistance. Editors can use AI tools for the first pass at translating text, but they still need to be fluent enough in both languages to catch errors. As with regular writing refinements, anyone using LLMs also has to check that incorrect information hasn’t been injected.

[-] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 255 points 2 months ago

AIbros: we're creating God!!!

AI users: it can do translation & reformating pretty well but you got to check it's not chatting shit

[-] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 99 points 2 months ago

The takeaway from all LLM-based AI is the user needs to be smart enough to do whatever they're asking anyway. All output needs to be verified before being used or relied upon.

The "AI" is just streamlining the process to save time.

Relying on it otherwise is stupid and just proves instantly that you are incompetent.

[-] Zagorath@quokk.au 12 points 2 months ago

the user needs to be smart enough to do whatever they're asking anyway

I'm gonna say that's ideal but not quite necessary. What's needed is that the user is capable of properly verifying the output. Which anyone who could do it themselves definitely can, but it can be done more broadly. It's an easier skill to verify a result than it is to obtain that result. Think: how film critics don't necessarily need to be filmmakers, or the P=NP question in computer science.

[-] Pyro@programming.dev 16 points 2 months ago

But if the output has issues, what're you going to do, prompt it again? If you are only able to verify but not do the task, you cannot correct the AI's mistakes yourself.

[-] Zagorath@quokk.au 9 points 2 months ago

At the risk of sounding like an overly obsequious AI… You know what, you're completely right. I'm honestly not sure what use case I was imagining when I wrote that last comment.

[-] Redjard@reddthat.com 6 points 2 months ago

Making text flow naturally, grouping and ordeeing information, good writing.

You can verify two textst have the same facts and information, yet one reads way better than the other. But writing a text that reads well is quite hard.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] youcantreadthis@quokk.au 9 points 2 months ago

Fucking hate those anti human filth pushing slop into everything. I want to take one apart with power tools.

[-] Paranoidfactoid@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

[-] Scrollone@feddit.it 5 points 2 months ago

Damn that movie was funny. I need to rewatch it.

[-] onlyhalfminotaur@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

It holds up better than any movie from the late 90s that I can think of.

[-] XLE@piefed.social 5 points 2 months ago

I don't think AI users would say it does reformatting either (if they're honest): If you tell a chatbot to reformat text without changing it, it will change the text, because it does not understand the concept of not changing text. It should only take one time for someone to get burned for them to learn that lesson.

[-] MissesAutumnRains 46 points 2 months ago

Seems pretty reasonable to use it as a grammar checker. As long as it's not changing content, just form or readability, that seems like a pretty decent use for it, at least with a purely educational resource like Wikipedia.

[-] daychilde@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

Liar. I already read the article before opening the comments. YOU SAVED ME NOTHING.

;-)

[-] Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 months ago

To save you another few clicks: this is the discussion (RfC) that implemented the changes, and the policy is linked at the top.

[-] errer@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Wikipedia probably wants to sell access to LLMs to train. It’s only valuable if Wikipedia remains a high-quality, slop-free source.

I think even AI zealots think there should be silos of content to train from that are fully human generated. Training slop on slop makes the slop even worse.

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago

Sell licenses of what? It's already all in the creative commons iirc.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com 8 points 2 months ago

This was only done because the editors pushed to minimize AI involvement. There's a comment here already mentioning that: https://lemmy.world/comment/22826863

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 87 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

An extremely measured and level-headed response. Kudos to Wikipedia for maintaining high standards.

[-] kazerniel@lemmy.world 112 points 2 months ago

It has to be said, they originally changed their stance due to the considerable editor pushback when they tried to introduce LLM summaries on the top of articles. So kudos to the editor community's resistance! ✊

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 41 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Good point. The real strength of Wikipedia truly lies in the editors .

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] SchwertImStein@lemmy.dbzer0.com 73 points 2 months ago

First, editors can use LLMs to suggest refinements to their own writing, as long as the edits are checked for accuracy.

translation assistance

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The former I'm still looking sideways at.

The latter, probably the only truly benevolent use of LLMs. And even then, you'll get plenty of grumbling.

[-] ThunderComplex@lemmy.today 12 points 2 months ago

Eh I think this sounds ok. If you prompt an AI to improve your text, you submit that, and another human reviews that (and maybe asks you to make changes) it should be fine. I can see this giving more people the ability to make edits (e.g. non-native speakers)

load more comments (12 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] rodneylives@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Thank you!

[-] SunlessGameStudios@lemmy.world 46 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I know at least one writing major who won an award from his volunteer work at Wikipedia. He did it as a hobby. They don't really need AI, they need people like him.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] yucandu@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago

Banned the people who openly admit it, anyway.

[-] aliser@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

there are ai detectors, although Im not sure about accuracy of those

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago

There should be only one exception: In case someone needs an example of an AI-generated text.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

LLMs are excellent tools for mapping one set of words and phrases to another, which is more or less exactly what you need out of a language translator.

[-] Mwa@thelemmy.club 18 points 2 months ago

W Wikipedia,would be better to remove the exceptions but its fine tbh.

[-] webp@mander.xyz 14 points 2 months ago

Why do they need AI at all? Wikipedia had existed long before it and was doing fine.

[-] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 31 points 2 months ago

You could make that argument about any tool Wikipedia editors use. Why should they need spellcheck? They were typing words just fine before.

...except it just makes it easier to spot errors or get little suggestions on how you could reword something, and thus makes the whole process a little smoother.

It's not strictly necessary, but this could definitely be helpful to people for translation and proofreading. Doesn't have to be something people are wholly reliant on to still be beneficial to their ability to edit Wikipedia.

[-] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 months ago

Why should we use (insert tool) when we did just fine before?

Because when used correctly it can be great for helping you be more productive, and find errors/make improvements. The two exceptions are for grammar which AI does a surprisingly good job with. Would you have gotten mad if they used Grammarly >5 years ago? Having it rewrite an entire article is gonna be a bad idea, but asking it to rephrase a sentence, or check your phrasing for potential issues is a much safer thing. Not everyone who speaks Spanish uses it the same way. Some words are innocuous in some regions, but offensive in others.

[-] webp@mander.xyz 5 points 2 months ago

Call me mad, call me crazy. AI shouldn't be altering databases of knowledge, especially when it is so inconsistent. If there is a question on whether certain words are appropriate why can't you ask another human being, they have forums for a reason, or someone else comes along and fixes it. Or look at a dictionary. The amount of energy spent for dubious information, holy. It's not like there is a shortage of human beings on earth.

[-] Qwel@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_articles_with_large_language_models

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LLM-assisted_translation

The two related "policies" are rather short, you should read them if you haven't.

AI shouldn’t be altering databases of knowledge, especially when it is so inconsistent

The policy only allows usage as an auto-translater (a task at which they are not worst than old-style auto-translaters that were always allowed) and as spellcheck/grammarcheck (where it is also not worst than other allowed options).

None of those tools were previously seen as altering Wikipedia by themselves. The goal is that LLMs should be used and considered like they were.

To be clear they always were articles for creation submitted from clearly google-translated text, and they always were dismissed as slop. To get an autotranslated article accepted, you need to clean it up until all the information is correct and the grammar is good enough. This is a rather standard workflow for translations. The same thing should apply to LLMs.

The new issue here is that LLMs can "organically" change informations while asked to translate. When a classic autotranslate changes the information, it often (not always) leaves a notable mess in the grammar. LLMs will insert their errors much more cleanly. This is acknowledged by both texts and, well, texts will change if that becomes a reocurring issue.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] SuperPengato@scribe.disroot.org 9 points 2 months ago

Wikipedia has banned AI-generated text,

Smiling Gus

... with two exceptions

Glaring Gus

[-] amateurcrastinator@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

But how do they know it is ai written?

[-] Aatube@thriv.social 6 points 2 months ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_AI_Cleanup/Guide

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] davidgro@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I hoped the exceptions would be like "Quoted example text of LLM output, when it's clearly labeled and styled separately from the article text."

[-] baltakatei@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 months ago

That exception probably would be twisted into permission to add an “AI summary” section to each article.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] albert_inkman@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

[removed by mod]

[-] Blackfeathr@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

You're not working on anything, clanker.

For those wondering, check the timestamps this accounts comment history, especially comments from 4 days ago or longer. Fully formatted multi-paragraph comments made 10-30 seconds apart. This is an LLM-controlled account.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] hperrin@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago

Good news. Hopefully they’ll get rid of those two exceptions in the future.

[-] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Would be pretty shitty to make sure every time you are editing Wikipedia to disable any AI based grammar/spellcheckers (e.g Grammarly), and not being allowed to use translation tools.

Because those are the two exceptions.

load more comments (5 replies)

Technology

Our Rules

Approved Bots