704
Wikipedia has banned AI-generated text, with two exceptions (www.howtogeek.com)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
106 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 6 months ago (9 children)

But if the output has issues, what're you going to do, prompt it again? If you are only able to verify but not do the task, you cannot correct the AI's mistakes yourself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    At the risk of sounding like an overly obsequious AI… You know what, you're completely right. I'm honestly not sure what use case I was imagining when I wrote that last comment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    Making text flow naturally, grouping and ordeeing information, good writing.

    You can verify two textst have the same facts and information, yet one reads way better than the other. But writing a text that reads well is quite hard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    You were thinking logically about a normal production chain. In that case, QA or whoever says "This is wrong, rework it and correct the issue" and that's that. With AI, it does the whole thing over again and may or may not come back with the same issue or an entirely new one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    If you're unable to brute-force verification (research, testing, consulting the ancient texts), there's where you stop what you're doing, and take a breath. Then, consult an expert. Just like the film critic analogy, it's easier to verify than to create, so you're saving the expert time and effort while learning about something that you were obviously already passionate enough about to have started this endeavor.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    As someone who codes, it's not always easier to verify than to create.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    As someone who codes, I specifically didn't say "always" because of course it's not always true. Especially in the cases of "garbage in, garbage out."

    But there's still an argument to be made for mental load and context, for which I'd argue that planning solutions and then writing the code generally is more taxing than someone handing you suggested solutions with semi-complete code or pseudo-code, and then identifying road blocks.

    On the other hand, if someone you trust unexpectedly hands you hallucinated garbage, then you're likely to spin your wheels trying to identify what they did.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    In Wikipedias case, you just fail to make an edit/new post. So you can verify if Ai can make a usable post up to standard with people who can verify but not make, hopefully saving enough time and bulk to help that group learn to make properly, as well as leave the ones Ai will fuck up to people who can do it right.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent