Comment

Comment on AI finds errors in 90% of Wikipedia's best articles

Yep. Let it flag potential problems, and have humans react to it, e.g. by reviewing and correcting things manually. AI can do a lot of things quick and efficiently, but it must be supervised like a toddler.

source

Sort:hotnew top

buffing_lecturer@leminal.space ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
This is an interesting idea:

The “at least one” in the prompt is deliberately aggressive, and seems likely to force hallucinations in case an article is definitely error-free. So, while the sample here (running the prompt only once against a small set of articles) would still be too small for it, it might be interesting to investigate using this prompt to produce a kind of article quality metric: If it repeatedly results only in invalid error findings (i.e. what a human reviewer no Disagrees with), that should indicate that the article is less likely to contain factual errors

source
architect@thelemmy.club ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
So… the same as most employees but cheaper.

People here are above average and overestimate the vast majority of humanity.

source