How about libraries and books? Back when i was in college teachers considered referencing wikipedia as a bad practice. And they would penalize us for sourcing wikipedia in papers and homeworks.
Wikipedia doesn’t say anything about efforts to detect AI-generated content or to ensure only humans can edit. This is bad. I’m saving a copy of 2024 Wikipedia just in case.
Interestingly, Wikipedia actually is testing AI technology, but not for editing or for content creation or even for searching. It wants to use it to assist in vandalism detection. Not a bad idea TBH, but I could definitely see how this could go wrong lol.
Write anything about Maga or Israel, get AI to remove your contribution because it’s vandalism.
In the AI era, a frozen copy of Wikipedia I downloaded before things turned even more to shit has never been more valuable
Wikipedia responsibility is to ensure is that the content remains truthful and it has to use any technical mean available to accomplish that valuable goal. Being no more than just a new powerful tool, AI can also be used for good causes, as any other tool.You are being bombarded by news of what corporations and governments are doing with it, so you naturally think that AI is a intrinsically a bad thing, but what Wikipedia and the Humans Rights Foundation are planning to do with AI are examples that it’s not the case and by rejecting the use of it you miss the opportunity to learn how to use it for the benefit of people and help to level the score. Sorry guys but someone had to tell you.
Wow, thanks for the lesson on AI! But let’s not forget that Wikipedia is also responsible for ensuring that the content remains truthful and unbiased. It’s not just a new powerful tool to be used blindly without questioning its sources or potential biases.
And while it’s great that organizations like Wikipedia and the Humans Rights Foundation are using AI for good causes, we should also be aware of the risks associated with it. Corporations and governments can use AI to manipulate information, spread propaganda, or even violate human rights. So let’s not get too excited about the possibilities of AI without critically evaluating its potential impacts on our society.
But let’s not forget that Wikipedia is also responsible for ensuring that the content remains truthful and unbiased.
It’s literally the first sentence that I wrote.
So let’s not get too excited about the possibilities of AI without critically evaluating its potential impacts on our society.
That’s my point. Corporations only look for profit without caring about the consecuences. Governments support this behavior and also are using AI for control and surveillance. So it’s up to us to test and evaluate how this powerful tool can be used responsibly for things that we care, and it’s already been used successfuly in many fields of science like astronomy, medicine and mathematics, so IMO it’s not rational to generalize and blindly reject AI, like many people seems to do.
LLMs literally can not ever be used like an encyclopedia, never ever never.
A magic 8 ball that sometimes gives wrong answers is in every way worse than just using the search function to look up an article.
Agreed. I don’t use it as an encyclopedia but I have used local models for learning and to explain me some things that I didn’t understand and it’s been impressive. It’s up to you to test and evaluate how can be helpful.
That’s how we get people who think they’ve invented an entirely new type of math.
Just look things up and learn them yourself. I know web searches are trash these days but it’s a valuable skill, you’ll regret losing it when the only teacher left is the magic 8 ball.
From the article you posted:
- “He wasn’t aware that ChatGPT could lie and that it was designed to keep him engaged.”
- “(They have) been fatally designed to create emotional dependency with users, even if that’s not what they set out looking for in terms of their engagement with the chat bot,”
Would you expect something different from a chatbot made by a greedy corporation only caring for profit? You are not aware of the dozens of AI solutions created for scientific use cases (among others) with succesful results in medicine, astronomy or mathematics, probably because they are not as clickbait as this article made by another greedy corporation. If you are truly insterested use you search skill to find them, may be you’ll discover your confirmation bias and change your mind about AI being intrinsically bad.
As an example a very recent work by one of the most renowned mathematicians: “In this paper we showcase AlphaEvolve as a tool for autonomously discovering novel mathematical constructions and advancing our understanding of long-standing open problems. To demonstrate its breadth, we considered a list of 67 problems spanning mathematical analysis, combinatorics, geometry, and number theory. The system rediscovered the best known solutions in most of the cases and discovered improved solutions in several. In some instances, AlphaEvolve is also able to generalize results for a finite number of input values into a formula valid for all input values. Furthermore, we are able to combine this methodology with Deep Think and AlphaProof in a broader framework where the additional proof-assistants and reasoning systems provide automated proof generation and further mathematical insights. These results demonstrate that large language model-guided evolutionary search can autonomously discover mathematical constructions that complement human intuition, at times matching or even improving the best known results, highlighting the potential for significant new ways of interaction between mathematicians and AI systems. We present AlphaEvolve as a powerful new tool for mathematical discovery, capable of exploring vast search spaces to solve complex optimization problems at scale, often with significantly reduced requirements on preparation and computation time.” https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02864
to explain me some things that I didn’t understand and it’s been impressive
So now you still don’t understand them but now you are confidently incorrect because an LLM made up some bullshit.
Seriously, ask it about a topic you do understand and see how wrong it is. Then realize it’s at least as wrong about everything else.
Seriously, ask it about a topic you do understand and see how wrong it is. >Then realize it’s at least as wrong about everything else.
I teach physics and math and I asked about a topic of differential geometry related to general relativity that wasn’t clear for me. I know enough of both topics to understand the answer and to acknowledge that it nailed it. You are the perfect example on how the mind of a fanatic works, without knowing if I know about what I asked and what was the answer, you dictate that it was wrong, based on pure speculation, just because it doesn’t fit your beliefs. Seriously guys, don’t be like this idiot, being so irrational can only do harm.
You’re being serious? Let me exhale from my nostrils in amused exasperation even harder.
