Because AI sucks at basically all tasks. And if I wanted the simple article I’d have visited the simple article. What you have done is denied entry to one of the most valuable resources ever created: wikipedia
But sometimes because of the context, as in this case, where we want info vouched for by actual humans who did research and who can be held accountable, instead of more slop.
Because people should be looking to expand their knowledge by getting into the details. By handwaving those details away with an AI summary that may or may not actually summarise the article correctly, people lose the opportunity to learn.
If your attention span or cognitive capacity can’t get you through a basic Wikipedia article you need to work on that, for your own betterment.
If you’re reading an article and you’re lost in the weeds you should be taking a step back to simpler concepts in Wikipedia (or elsewhere) first. Don’t trust a LLM to make a coherent summary about a topic you can’t understand, because you won’t be able to tell if it’s feeding you bullshit.
Pro@programming.dev 1 week ago
Why?
Olap@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Because AI sucks at basically all tasks. And if I wanted the simple article I’d have visited the simple article. What you have done is denied entry to one of the most valuable resources ever created: wikipedia
Tetsuo@jlai.lu 1 week ago
It’s AI.
People really despise AI over here. No matter the context.
sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
But sometimes because of the context, as in this case, where we want info vouched for by actual humans who did research and who can be held accountable, instead of more slop.
dgriffith@aussie.zone 1 week ago
Because people should be looking to expand their knowledge by getting into the details. By handwaving those details away with an AI summary that may or may not actually summarise the article correctly, people lose the opportunity to learn.
If your attention span or cognitive capacity can’t get you through a basic Wikipedia article you need to work on that, for your own betterment.
If you’re reading an article and you’re lost in the weeds you should be taking a step back to simpler concepts in Wikipedia (or elsewhere) first. Don’t trust a LLM to make a coherent summary about a topic you can’t understand, because you won’t be able to tell if it’s feeding you bullshit.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
You’re missing the point. Some people have, for example, dyslexia. Which is the whole point of simple wikipedia. But it’s lacking articles.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
Because reading comprehension in lazy browsing mode on lemmy, missing the accessibility part.
sentient_loom@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
On something like wikipedia I only want words that are written by humans, vouched for by individuals who are accountable for what they write.
If I want AI generated content I’ll go to an AI site.
Humans are good at writing. We literally invented it and we’re experts. I’ll stop using wikipedia if they turn into a slop heap.