> at least they are not as much a single point of failure

Yes, network effects and hyper scale produce perverse incentives. It sucks that Wikipedia can be gamed. Saying that, you'd need to be actively colluding with other contributors to maintain control.

Imagining that AI is somehow more neutral or resistant to influence is incredibly naive. Isn't it obvious that they can be "aligned" to favor the interests of whoever trains them?

>Imagining that AI is somehow more neutral or resistant to influence is incredibly naive

The point is well taken. I just feel that at this point in time the reliance on Wikipedia as a source of objective truth is disproportionate and increasingly undeserved.

As I said, I don't think AI is a panacea at all. But the way in which LLMs can be influenced is different. It's more like bias in Google search. But I'm not naive enough to believe that this couldn't turn into a huge problem eventually.