What’s Wikipedia? Do you all read whatever article in front of you or do you look for the source article? Surely you are all checking sources on everything and not just acting like ai is the only place you have to do it!
Yes. If the article doesn’t contradict anything that I already know and the correctness of the information isn’t required to avoid bodily harm or legal repercussions then I don’t usually check the sources.
There’s a world of difference between the reliability of a continuously, openly and cooperatively updated encyclopedia and that of a stochastic word prediction machine that ingested the entire internet - and only gods (and its owners) know what else.
Wikipedia’s articles tend to improve in accuracy over time, as more people see the same article, can discuss it and correct wrong information / add missing facts and sources.
While LLM models tend to become more capable at certain tasks, they aren’t increasingly reliable at providing accurate information. And there aren’t the same stabilizing forces in play as with a human-edited encyclopedia. You can get correct answers today and incorrect answers tomorrow for the same question. Maybe it’s because the model was updated. Maybe it’s because you used sightly different words to ask the question. Maybe nothing changed and it was simply a random deviation because 0-temperature models aren’t flexible enough.
The point is, you have no way to know. No way of knowing why the answer is wrong this time. No way of ensuring it isn’t wrong again tomorrow. Not even any way of ensuring it isn’t wrong in the same way tomorrow.
So it’s not just that the likelihood of a wrong answer is higher with AI, it’s also much harder to predict what kind of error it might make or when or why and adjust accordingly.
You’re essentially playing roulette for information.
What’s Wikipedia? Do you all read whatever article in front of you or do you look for the source article? Surely you are all checking sources on everything and not just acting like ai is the only place you have to do it!
Yes. If the article doesn’t contradict anything that I already know and the correctness of the information isn’t required to avoid bodily harm or legal repercussions then I don’t usually check the sources.
There’s a world of difference between the reliability of a continuously, openly and cooperatively updated encyclopedia and that of a stochastic word prediction machine that ingested the entire internet - and only gods (and its owners) know what else.
Wikipedia’s articles tend to improve in accuracy over time, as more people see the same article, can discuss it and correct wrong information / add missing facts and sources.
While LLM models tend to become more capable at certain tasks, they aren’t increasingly reliable at providing accurate information. And there aren’t the same stabilizing forces in play as with a human-edited encyclopedia. You can get correct answers today and incorrect answers tomorrow for the same question. Maybe it’s because the model was updated. Maybe it’s because you used sightly different words to ask the question. Maybe nothing changed and it was simply a random deviation because 0-temperature models aren’t flexible enough.
The point is, you have no way to know. No way of knowing why the answer is wrong this time. No way of ensuring it isn’t wrong again tomorrow. Not even any way of ensuring it isn’t wrong in the same way tomorrow.
So it’s not just that the likelihood of a wrong answer is higher with AI, it’s also much harder to predict what kind of error it might make or when or why and adjust accordingly.
You’re essentially playing roulette for information.
Is that trolling?
Are you trolling, bro?