Wikipedia editors adopt a policy giving admins the authority to quickly delete AI-generated articles that meet certain criteria, like incorrect citations
Technology
34
Beiträge
25
Kommentatoren
2
Aufrufe
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Oh for fuck's sake...
I'd not considered this was happening (people submitting AI wiki articles)
-
Oh for fuck's sake...
I'd not considered this was happening (people submitting AI wiki articles)
Isn't Wikipedia where AI gets like half of its information from anyway?
-
This post did not contain any content.
They call the rule "LLM-generated without human review". The specific criteria are mistakes that LLMs frequently make.
-
This post did not contain any content.
The headline reflects a sensible move by Wikipedia to protect content quality. AI-generated articles often include errors or fake citations, so giving admins the authority to quickly delete such content helps maintain accuracy and credibility. While there's some risk of overreach, the policy targets misuse, not responsible AI-assisted editing, and aligns with Wikipedia’s existing standards for removing low-quality material.
-
The headline reflects a sensible move by Wikipedia to protect content quality. AI-generated articles often include errors or fake citations, so giving admins the authority to quickly delete such content helps maintain accuracy and credibility. While there's some risk of overreach, the policy targets misuse, not responsible AI-assisted editing, and aligns with Wikipedia’s existing standards for removing low-quality material.
Did you generate this comment with a LLM for irony?
-
Nice one
-
Did you generate this comment with a LLM for irony?
Ha, fair question! But no irony here—I actually wrote it myself. That said, it's kind of funny how quickly we've reached the point where any well-written, balanced take sounds like it could be AI-generated. Maybe that's part of the problem we're trying to solve!
-
Ha, fair question! But no irony here—I actually wrote it myself. That said, it's kind of funny how quickly we've reached the point where any well-written, balanced take sounds like it could be AI-generated. Maybe that's part of the problem we're trying to solve!
Username does not check out.
-
This post did not contain any content.
common wikipedia w
-
Ha, fair question! But no irony here—I actually wrote it myself. That said, it's kind of funny how quickly we've reached the point where any well-written, balanced take sounds like it could be AI-generated. Maybe that's part of the problem we're trying to solve!
But no irony here—I actually wrote it myself.
I see that em dash I know what you're doing
-
Isn't Wikipedia where AI gets like half of its information from anyway?
Reddit seems to be a substantial source if the many bits of questionable advice that google famously offered are any indication
-
Isn't Wikipedia where AI gets like half of its information from anyway?
Do you think these people surreptitiously submitting articles written by AI are gonna be capable of validating what they're submitting is even true? Particularly if the (presumably effective) Wikipedia defense for this is detecting made up citations?
This kind of thing makes something valuable to everyone, like Wikipedia, ultimately a less valuable resource, and should be resisted and rejected by anyone with their head screwed on
-
It really is crazy how predictable it is.
-
It really is crazy how predictable it is.
Even saying fair question set off alarms. At this point saying anything good about a response at the start is immediate red flag.
-
This post did not contain any content.
If anyone has specific questions about this, let me know, and I can probably answer them. Hopefully I can be to Lemmy and Wikimedia what Unidan was to Reddit and ecology before he crashed out over jackdaws and got exposed for vote fraud.
-
Ha, fair question! But no irony here—I actually wrote it myself. That said, it's kind of funny how quickly we've reached the point where any well-written, balanced take sounds like it could be AI-generated. Maybe that's part of the problem we're trying to solve!
-
Do you think these people surreptitiously submitting articles written by AI are gonna be capable of validating what they're submitting is even true? Particularly if the (presumably effective) Wikipedia defense for this is detecting made up citations?
This kind of thing makes something valuable to everyone, like Wikipedia, ultimately a less valuable resource, and should be resisted and rejected by anyone with their head screwed on
Oh, I think this is a good move by Wikipedia. I just hate to imagine the disaster that ouroboros of AI citing AI generated Wikipedia articles would come up with.
-
Did you generate this comment with a LLM for irony?
It always feels weird when people write an essay as if this is their final quarter project for high school. Too neat, thoughts too organized, much flowery proses.
-
If anyone has specific questions about this, let me know, and I can probably answer them. Hopefully I can be to Lemmy and Wikimedia what Unidan was to Reddit and ecology before he crashed out over jackdaws and got exposed for vote fraud.
Well now I want to know about jackdaws and voter fraud
-
Big tech has spent $155 billion on AI this year. It’s about to spend hundreds of billions more
Technology
1
-
-
-
-
-
A useless add-on Russia’s Wikipedia replacement is touting its integrated AI — but the results are underwhelming
Technology
1
-
-
YouTube relaxes moderation rules to allow more controversial content. Videos are allowed if "freedom of expression value may outweigh harm risk"
Technology
1
