Comment on Wikipedia is using (some) generative AI now

• Xanza@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  The idea of generative AI isn’t accuracy, so that’s pretty expected.

  Generative AI is designed to be used with a content base and expand on information, not to create new information. You can feed generative AI with the entirety of the current Wikipedia text source and have it expand on subjects which need it, and curtail and simply subjects which need it.

  You don’t ask generative AI to come up with new information–that’s how you get inaccurate information.

  text AI generators making up believable lies if it doesnt have enough information

  Let’s not anthropomorphize AI. It doesn’t lie. It uses available data to expand on a subject to make it conversationally complete when it lacks sufficient information on a subject, regardless of whether or not the context is correct. That’s completely different, and you can specifically prohibit an AI from doing that…

  AI is great when used appropriately. The issue is that people are using AI as a Google replacement, something it’s not designed to do. AI isn’t a fact engine. LLMs are designed to as closely resemble human speech as possible, not to give correct information to questions. People’s issue with AI is that they’re fucking using it wrong.

  This is an exceptionally great usage of AI because you already have the required factual background knowledge. You can simply feed it to your AI telling it not to fill in any gaps and to rewrite articles to be more uniform and to have direct and easy to consume verbiage. This instance is quite literally what generative AI was designed for…to use factual knowledge and to generate context around the existing data.

  Issues arise when you use AI for things other than what it was intended, and you don’t give it enough information and it has to generate information to complete datasets. AI will do what you ask, you just have to know how to ask it. That’s why AI prompt engineers are a thing.

  source

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Exactly. At work, my team kinda sucks at communication but great w/ facts (we’re engineers, go figure), so they use gen AI to turn facts into nicer-to-read documentation and communication (i.e. personal reviews, emails, documentation, etc). The process is relatively smooth:

    1. generate all the facts in a rough form
    2. ask AI to reword it for whatever purpose
    3. edit it a bit to correct any issues
    4. if needed, ask a coworker to quickly review it

    For that task, it works pretty well.

    source

    • Xanza@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I also use it for this. Sometimes I can get pretty draconian with my speech, so I feed my long winded responses into AI, and pull out a more readable responses. I even have AI write pull requests sometimes. Works great.

      source
  • RandomVideos@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    I still fear that mistakes may slip through, but those can be spotted if multiple people check the text

    There are wikipedia pages that are really obscure(especially from pages that are not in english) and that nobody would probably check to verify its correct

    source

    • Xanza@lemm.ee ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I still fear that mistakes may slip through

      Wikipedia is moderated by real people, so this is a non-issue. The fault tolerance for Wikipedia will be the same from AI vs People because it’s moderated by the same people regardless of where the content comes from.

      source