| ▲ | Kim_Bruning 2 days ago | |
It REALLY depends on how you're using the AI. I get the strong impression a lot of people are still at the "I'll write a few prompts and see what happens" stage, and hoping for an answer from the magical oracle; as opposed to really using the tool. This never fails to disappoint. I might be slightly wrong, but probably not by a lot, yet. Sure there's an element of "holding-it-wrong-ism" in my position. But ... it does actually take practice to get it right, and best practices are badly documented! That said the situation is changing rapidly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47547849 "AI bug reports went from junk to legit overnight, says Linux kernel czar" -- | ||
| ▲ | jjmarr a day ago | parent [-] | |
Most Wikipedia work is taking paywalled academic content and summarizing it in an encyclopedic format. For programming, agentic AI can find most of what it needs because everything is open access on Arxiv, blogs, or in the codebase itself. That's why it can "magical oracle" answer questions that were limited to good prompting. For most other professional topics, citations are locked behind paywalls. Wikipedia editors get free access to academic libraries, but the readers don't. That's why consumer tools suck. When the big AI companies integrate with proprietary databases in fields like history or social sciences is the time when Wikipedia dies for answering questions. | ||