Hacker News Reader

Comment by oxyg3n | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

You can always read Grokipedia if this feels like a lost opportunity to you.

Why to multiply instead of going to the same place for knowledge? It is almost like you want to make a different Wikipedia for conservatives and liberals because one cannot tolerate a tone or style of the other. Probably we should dedicate dozens of sites for the same topic depending on the writing styles of the humans too. There are a few out there.

In worst case we might have an 'AI language' (or languages) instead, so the sensitive souls could find a safe heaven from it elsewhere, choosing something else. Perhaps one along the idea of 'simple English', have it 'AI English'. Or something else satisfies those looking for a specific way of delivery they can handle exclusively.

I think knowledge is the important here, not the tone.

> Why to multiply instead of going to the same place for knowledge?

Why write more than a book instead of just putting everything into one book?

This is a way of thinking from which it is hard to get out, I have no idea how to point it to you.

LLMs can't know things. They have no concept of veracity. In a place for knowledge they'd better be left out.

The knowledge comes from the humans. AI is used to write it down. I do not think it was said that the knowledge comes from the AI. Just like thoughts are not produced by a typewriter.

So the humans have the knowledge, and the only way that an LLM can possibly reproduce it is by happenstance after you train it on the tokenized representation of the human knowledge, a process in which it is just as likely to make something up. What is the point of the LLM in this elaborate waste of time? What does it add?

A typewriter prints the letters exactly as you press the corresponding keys. It doesn't invent bullshit on its own as you do. I can't take the comparison to a typwriter as a serious, good faith argument. If you have any worthwhile ideas, please bring those up instead of poorly considered variations on the usual "it's just a tool" platitudes. The comparison is invalid. You are thoughtless for bringing it up.

In case you were not aware, Grokipedia is not merely "conservative", but literally AI generated.

The ability to identify analogy and not to confuse with equality requires the capacity of abstraction.

There is already a different Wikipedia for conservatives, https://www.conservapedia.com

Honestly Wikipedia is just fine being written by humans. It's not the lack of copy that is holding Wikipedia back.

However,

> Perhaps one along the idea of 'simple English', have it 'AI English'.

That's actually an interesting idea. It could work, but I don't personally think it would be better than the English Wikipedia.

Also, are you expecting that humans would still be on the loop by deciding what gets added to AI English Wikipedia, or you think that LLMs should get to decide that too?

Why force one particular website to act the way you want, instead of just using a different website that already does? I don't go to HN and then complain it doesn't have subreddits.

Yes, why even put the slop on Wikipedia when you can get it directly from the source.

> It is almost like you want to make a different Wikipedia for conservatives and liberals because one cannot tolerate a tone or style of the other.

Many conservative worldview elements such as climate change denialism, creationism or anti LGBT view (e.g. LGBT being "unnatural") are not backed by reality because they run counter to scientifical consensus. And that's before we go into the outlandish bullshit conspiracy crap like "ZOG/zionist occupied government", "flat earth", "9/11 was faked", "the moon landing was faked" and the likes that gains more and more momentum among "conservative" people.

You cannot make a Wikipedia appealing to conservatives.

Sure you can, it's called conservapedia. Problem: most of the facts on conservapedia are not facts. It's entertaining to skim through though.

> Problem: most of the facts on conservapedia are not facts

Well, that's exactly what I said. A "Wikipedia" implies that what's written there is based on facts.

> It's entertaining to skim through though

Not really. The stuff coming out of the GOP that makes its way across the pond is bad enough.

"if correct, obviously" - please elaborate. I do not see how this is obvious. Or how being correct is obvious.

Not to mention this exact question is being discussed in the article.

Not sure what question you're supposing he asked which was in the article. OP's point seemed to be that correct words written by a human could be effectively the same as correct words written by a machine, supposing the machine managed to be correct by learning from human content. The 'obvious' part is this wouldn't be true if the AI content was incorrect. At least that is what I got.

If restaurant asks to only eat the food you bought there at their tables, the question is not "but what if food from other places also is good"?

Can't wikipedia ask who and it what way writes content on their pages?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com