And ChatGPT cites Wikipedia
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2026
619 points (98.7% liked)
Fuck AI
7541 readers
1574 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Just use the sources cited in Wikipedia
Its simple actually.
Boomers are always correct, you are always wrong.
... see how this works?
Thats the underlying consistent principle that is held to. Everything else is inconsistent fluff.
Whatever they think is neat, is correct. Whatever they think is stupid, is wrong.
They own the media, they run the culture.
https://archive.org/details/seaoftranquility_20241114?start=3375.1 (cued) (for a few seconds)
(cue to the start of the song: https://archive.org/details/seaoftranquility_20241114?start=3342)
Nothing really is that's why you got to be a critical thinker and grab it by the horns. Learning is doing. The masters curate the world to their benefit and if you are lucky you cut a path in. It is not what you do but what you won’t do trying to avoid the blow back of others stupid choices. In a modern world of idol whoreship it is hard to fit in.
People never really cared about information hygiene.
They tried to teach it at the “dawn of the internet for the average person” back then. The lesson was supposed to be to follow Wikipedia’s links, which do cite primary sources.
This is true.
But it turns out, no one cares. Schools failed. People fundamentally want validation of what feels good, and social media took full advantage of this.
Worse the people which use Fox News, Truth Social and a TikTok influencer as valid source.
Or Lemmy...
AI implementation in every Browser has me looking up information direktly on wikipedia.org without going through a search engine first.
Most information isn't on Wikipedia
A lot of it is: one just has to look for it a bit.
I know what information I can find on Wikipedia and I know that I can find additional information in the sources. Obviously I do not only use Wikipedia.
Not sure if you're joking, but that is what I'd want. A very samll / compact, open source/weights AI model that runs locally, can interpret what I'm looking for and then queries encyclopedias, or a local wikipedia, science paper abstracts, articles and search backends (ideally EU funded) to find the shit I'm looking for. Including sources to back up what it's telling me.
We need to somehow democratize search engines and AI models could be immensely useful for this. Even just filtering out the AI slop. Too bad there was such a kneejerk backlash to AI in firefox.
There isn't any lightweight local LLM which give valid results, or you dedicate >90GB for it, or you permits that it connect to the online source servers, wasting a lot of bandwith. You can use locally only AIs dedicated to certain tasks, eg for summarizing documents or in some graphic apps to automate some functions or for accounting in the office, but forget an local alround Assistant.
If you want an AI for certain tasks, use search assistants, like DuckAI or Andisearch, which are good for summarize results fom Webpages without the need of big and large lengage models, being privacy friendly, or use a specific one which you can anonym without account, eg one of those from HuggingFace or one specific from Futurepedia, there you can filter what you need.
We already have this! It’s called a tool harness, and basically any kind of local agent framework supports it already, as well as a whole slew of locally runnable LLMs in every size.
The difference is AI makes line go up.
If you're writing a research paper, which is when you were taught not to cite wikipedia in school, you should also not cite chatgpt. You're talking about business, where no one gave a fuck before and they definitely don't give a fuck meow
Yes, but there’s certainly a disconnect here between what school entrained us to believe and what “real life” cares about, which is maybe the point here.
Not a new idea, I know, but watching the world upend itself over some tech “progress” highlights this gulf, not to mention how much school scepticism was right, to some extent, all along.
Its not a disconnect, in the sense of accidental misalignment.
Its literally rules for thee and not for me.
A teacher of a millennial who chastized them for citing the source wikipedia cites... would likely be the same person who is today enraptured by AI, if not directly, at least in their retirement portfolio.
... they are in fact actively full of shit, and most of them know it.
Boomers broadly do not personally follow the principles they demand others follow.
At least a mindless Alpha Ipad baby or TikTok brainrotted Gen Z wouldn't gaslight you into pretending what they are doing thoughtlessly or dubiously is actually just common sense and you are infact a completely invalid failure of a person if you disagree.
I hear you.
When writing an academic paper you should be using direct sources. Even when sourcing info from a research paper you shouldn't reference something in the paper that is cited from another source you should go to that source to cite it.
I don't know. This just seems like the logical next step from "just Google it." I'm under the impression that search results were tailored for the user and even if they weren't most of the time Google just seemed like a tool for confirmation bias, not education.
That said, Wikipedia isn't a valid source due to the fact that it can be subject to change in ways that can make it difficult to check later. That saaaaaid, Wikipedia has sources you can potentially investigate and cite soooo... I mean... Just saying.
my theory has always been the textbook publishers told teachers that Wikipedia was bad because its online and anyone can edit it, whilst the textbooks are "peer reviewed" and only have "truthful information".
meanwhile, modern textbooks are being generated via chatgpt.
I think the idea was that authors / professors of textbooks have a reputation to loose if they publish bullshit. Like they are the authority on a topic and if wrong they loose that status / prestige.
I don't think it requires being bought off to understand that a research paper should rely on primary sources and original thought where possible. Obviously incorporating analysis of those sources and potential biases is important, but you want to be able to form your own conclusions based on unfiltered information. Otherwise it's not really a research paper, more just a summary or review of other people's research.
No professor worth a shit What tell students that a textbook is peer-reviewed. They aren't.
In other words, McGraw-Hill bought them off and discredited independent sources.
It was always kinda a spectrum anyways
Fuck that, they straight up accepted sources that cited Wikipedia.
I totally didn't cite a book I have never seen in my master thesis because it was cited by Wikipedia
"infuriating" you mean this right?