the thing is: if AI-Generated Content (if correct, obviously) is just some topics learnt from humans, what's the difference between something correct written by a machine and something correct written by a human?

▲

boomlinde 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You can always read Grokipedia if this feels like a lost opportunity to you.

▲

imdsm 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not sure if you're being snarky or not, but the period at the end makes me think yes

▲

NuclearPM 2 hours ago | parent [-]

What else would end the sentence?

	▲	Octoth0rpe an hour ago \| parent [-]
		A question mark? :)

▲

mihaaly 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why to multiply instead of going to the same place for knowledge? It is almost like you want to make a different Wikipedia for conservatives and liberals because one cannot tolerate a tone or style of the other. Probably we should dedicate dozens of sites for the same topic depending on the writing styles of the humans too. There are a few out there.

In worst case we might have an 'AI language' (or languages) instead, so the sensitive souls could find a safe heaven from it elsewhere, choosing something else. Perhaps one along the idea of 'simple English', have it 'AI English'. Or something else satisfies those looking for a specific way of delivery they can handle exclusively.

I think knowledge is the important here, not the tone.

	▲	bananaflag 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Why to multiply instead of going to the same place for knowledge? Why write more than a book instead of just putting everything into one book? This is a way of thinking from which it is hard to get out, I have no idea how to point it to you.
	▲	boomlinde 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		LLMs can't know things. They have no concept of veracity. In a place for knowledge they'd better be left out.
	▲	motionlessveloc 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		In case you were not aware, Grokipedia is not merely "conservative", but literally AI generated.
	▲	nextaccountic 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		There is already a different Wikipedia for conservatives, https://www.conservapedia.com Honestly Wikipedia is just fine being written by humans. It's not the lack of copy that is holding Wikipedia back. However, > Perhaps one along the idea of 'simple English', have it 'AI English'. That's actually an interesting idea. It could work, but I don't personally think it would be better than the English Wikipedia. Also, are you expecting that humans would still be on the loop by deciding what gets added to AI English Wikipedia, or you think that LLMs should get to decide that too?
	▲	account42 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Yes, why even put the slop on Wikipedia when you can get it directly from the source.
	▲	mschuster91 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> It is almost like you want to make a different Wikipedia for conservatives and liberals because one cannot tolerate a tone or style of the other. Many conservative worldview elements such as climate change denialism, creationism or anti LGBT view (e.g. LGBT being "unnatural") are not backed by reality because they run counter to scientifical consensus. And that's before we go into the outlandish bullshit conspiracy crap like "ZOG/zionist occupied government", "flat earth", "9/11 was faked", "the moon landing was faked" and the likes that gains more and more momentum among "conservative" people. You cannot make a Wikipedia appealing to conservatives.

▲

112233 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"if correct, obviously" - please elaborate. I do not see how this is obvious. Or how being correct is obvious.

Not to mention this exact question is being discussed in the article.

▲

nougati 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not sure what question you're supposing he asked which was in the article. OP's point seemed to be that correct words written by a human could be effectively the same as correct words written by a machine, supposing the machine managed to be correct by learning from human content. The 'obvious' part is this wouldn't be true if the AI content was incorrect. At least that is what I got.

	▲	112233 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		If restaurant asks to only eat the food you bought there at their tables, the question is not "but what if food from other places also is good"? Can't wikipedia ask who and it what way writes content on their pages?

▲

imdsm 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What about:

Correct information written by AI vs incorrect, biased information written by humans?

	▲	tyromaniac 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		As if AI output isn't biased?