Chulk

joined 9 months ago
[–] Chulk@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think the academic advice about Wikipedia was sadly mistaken.

Yeah, a lot of people had your perspective about Wikipedia while I was in college, but they are wrong, according to Wikipedia.

From the link:

We advise special caution when using Wikipedia as a source for research projects. Normal academic usage of Wikipedia is for getting the general facts of a problem and to gather keywords, references and bibliographical pointers, but not as a source in itself. Remember that Wikipedia is a wiki. Anyone in the world can edit an article, deleting accurate information or adding false information, which the reader may not recognize. Thus, you probably shouldn't be citing Wikipedia. This is good advice for all tertiary sources such as encyclopedias, which are designed to introduce readers to a topic, not to be the final point of reference. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information.

I personally use ChatGPT like I would Wikipedia. It's a great introduction to a subject, especially in my line of work, which is software development. I can get summarized information about new languages and frameworks really quickly, and then I can dive into the official documentation when I have a high level understanding of the topic at hand. Unfortunately, most people do not use LLMs this way.

[–] Chulk@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

You shouldn’t cite Wikipedia because it is not a source of information, it is a summary of other sources which are referenced.

Right, and if an LLM is citing Wikipedia 47.9% of the time, that means that it's summarizing Wikipedia's summary.

You shouldn’t cite Wikipedia for the same reason you shouldn’t cite a library’s book report, you should read and cite the book itself.

Exactly my point.

[–] Chulk@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 month ago

While I agree with the sentiment, I think we're going to get blamed regardless of whether we're in power. Might as well have some decision making power while it happens. I think part of it is that we need candidates who are willing to push back hard against the narratives . drop the high road shit and step into the pit.

[–] Chulk@lemmy.ml 35 points 1 month ago (10 children)

Throughout most of my years of higher education as well as k-12, I was told that sourcing Wikipedia was forbidden. In fact, many professors/teachers would automatically fail an assignment if they felt you were using wikipedia. The claim was that the information was often inaccurate, or changing too frequently to be reliable. This reasoning, while irritating at times, always made sense to me.

Fast forward to my professional life today. I've been told on a number of occasions that I should trust LLMs to give me an accurate answer. I'm told that I will "be left behind" if I don't use ChatGPT to accomplish things faster. I'm told that my concerns of accuracy and ethics surrounding generative AI is simply "negativity."

These tools are (abstractly) referencing random users on the internet as well as Wikipedia and treating them both as legitimate sources of information. That seems crazy to me. How can we trust a technology that just references flawed sources from our past? I know there's ways to improve accuracy with things like RAG, but most people are hitting the LLM directly.

The culture around Generative AI should be scientific and cautious, but instead it feels like a cult with a good marketing team.

[–] Chulk@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

Don't threaten me with a good time!

[–] Chulk@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago

Hell yeah - FMA has so many good side characters!

[–] Chulk@lemmy.ml 55 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

I spent years trying to convince my friends and family that Elon musk sucks, and then he just went off the deepend. Im glad it's widely known how much he sucks now, but damn i wish it didnt take so long.

Now if only people knew who Peter Thiel was

[–] Chulk@lemmy.ml 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

If anyone ever did this with my likeness after death, even with good intentions, i would haunt the fuck out of them.

[–] Chulk@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

marketing hype is pushing anything with AI in the name, but it will all settle out eventually

Agreed. "use it or be left behind" itself sounds like a phrase straight out of a marketing pitch from every single "AI-centric" company that pushes their "revolutionary" product. It's a phrase that i hear daily from c-suite executives that know very little of what they're talking about. AI (specifically generative) has its usecases, but it's nowhere near where the marketing says it is. And when it finally does get there, i think people are going to be surprised when they don't find themselves in the utopia that they've been promised.

[–] Chulk@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago

If fake experts on the internet get their jobs taken by the ai, it would be tragic indeed.

These two groups are not mutually exclusive

[–] Chulk@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago

Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal are both detailed games that are optimized really well.

[–] Chulk@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And to what end? Just to have a misinformed populace over literally every subject!

This is a feature; not a bug. We're entering a new dark age, and generative AI is the tool that will usher it in. The only "problem" generative AI is efficiently solving is a populace with too much access to direct and accurate information. We're watching as perfectly functional tools and services are being rapidly replaced by a something with inherent issues with reliability, ethics and accountability.

view more: ‹ prev next ›