2·
22 hours agoWhich is not relevant to the actual use case for AI being discussed. There’s no direct AI involvement in editing articles being proposed here.
FaceDeer
Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit before joining the Threadiverse as well.
- 0 Posts
- 8 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: March 3rd, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
I don’t see how this fits into the actual case being discussed here.
The situation currently is that a newbie editor whose article is deleted gets presented with a simple “your article was deleted” message. The proposition is to have an AI flesh that out with a “possibly for the following reasons:” Explanation. How is that worse?
All that stuff about paying less and threatening the worker class is irrelevant. This is Wikipedia, its editors and administrators are all unpaid volunteers.
There are lots of non-proprietary AI models out there, some of them comparable in quality to ChatGPT. Wikipedia could run it themselves if they wanted, no “corpo involvement.”
They want to handle lots of prompts.
What about any of this remotely connects to “rewriting history and eliminating freedom of speech?”
That being said, it still wreaks of “CEO Speak.” And trying to find a place to shove AI in.
I don’t see how this is “shoved in.” Wales identified a situation where Wikipedia’s existing non-AI process doesn’t work well and then realized that adding AI assistance could improve it.
“Editors” are not a unified block. I would be fine with it, depending on how it’s used.
Now we’re “vibe vibing?”