778
So much more reliable
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2026
778 points (98.7% liked)
memes
22248 readers
3297 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
People choosing to post slop edits on Wikipedia means Wikipedia itself is supportive of AI?
Besides, I've regularly seen AI generated content get labeled as LLM-generated (and marked for cleanup/removal), removed AI content myself, and seen editors revert obvious AI slop content within a minute of the edit being made. AI is absolutely not something Wikipedia or most of its editors support.
Having guidelines on how to use AI is not enough to be ethical. It needs to be an immediately punishable offense.
Look at these fucking sloppers so proud about their "innovation."
(From the Meta-wiki page on the topic)
"Our use of AI will allow editors to focus more on what they want to accomplish, not how to technically achieve it."
"we cannot significantly support editors with AI for both content generation and content integrity at the same time. We made a decision to first prioritize using AI to support editors to assure content integrity."
"generative AI in particular offers a promising solution for automated mentoring and guidance of newcomers"
"we should prioritize using AI to support knowledge integrity and increase the moderator's capacity to maintain Wikipedia’s quality"
(From the most current page regarding AI use policy on Wikipedia and the LLM Writing Guide)
"the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited"
This is categorically an outright refusal to allow LLMs as a method of simply generating content. The only exceptions are for language translation (with many caveats), and for minor grammar corrections.
i.e. the shit you could do with a tool like Google Translate or Grammarly/LanguageTool/Word Spellcheck/etc, just done via a different mechanism, with anything past that being outright prohibited.
Also, it is punished, via the same means any transgression on Wikipedia is. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Persistent_LLM_use and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors
Do you even edit Wikipedia? Have you had to rewrite or remove LLM content and put warnings on people's talk page? Have you reviewed the live changes feed to repeatedly see LLM-generated content getting removed? Or do you just want something to complain about while ignoring what actually happens on Wikipedia because you don't seem to even have read a single meta or guidelines page on the topic?
Oh wow cool cool, but unlike you I don't condone slop so maybe don't die on the hill trying to defend it in my proximity it would make me feel a lot better, thanks.
And btw my link was also a direct link to Wikimedia, the nonprofit who owns Wikipedia.
Are you clinicly stupid?
Quote where I condoned slop. Oh you can't? That's so crazy, it's almost as if I didn't.
Sending you links to the actual policies instead of just relying on your made up assertions of what the policies are is dying on a hill? You're the one dying on a hill you made up lol
You linked to a blog post by Wikimedia that's over a year old. I linked to current Wikipedia policies.
Which do you think is more reflective of the organization's current stance:
You're linking to guides on how to Slop but yet you don't condone slop? Dumbass.
"the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited"
"[LLM generated] edits to existing pages may be reverted without review, and pages where the editor is the only significant contributor may be nominated for a special proposed deletion process"
Does that seem like condoning slop to you?
Again, there are only two highly limited exceptions: spellcheck (whaddaya know, the thing who's entire purpose is to predict likely words is good at being a thesaurus and grammar checker.), and translation (you must be skilled in both used languages, re-check every source and its claims, and read through the entire article for hallucinations while crosschecking with the original document's other language version)
This is why I stated earlier that you seem to just want something to be mad about. Wikipedia is just only allowing LLMs to be used for cases they already allowed with non-LLM tools prior, that LLMs are also more typically reliable in, while mandating extensive human review.
You are getting angry and calling me a dumbass because Wikipedia allows the narrow functions of something performing the exact same functions as spellcheck or Google Translate 💀
I'm never going to condone slop so you can take your many exceptions and shove it.
Two is many?
And no, if you think spellcheck and language translators are slop, then unfortunately for you, a sizeable chunk of all written content ever created on the internet has been "slop" since far before LLMs even existed.
Regardless, I think it's clear at this point you don't give a fuck and just want to be angry, so I'll stop and hopefully you won't burst a blood vessel or something.
Please calm down.
Me calm down? You're over here writing a novella to defend slop.
Too bad you're over here showing everyone how how stupid you are instead of letting it go when proven wrong.
lmao
Did you read what the wikipedia owners wrote?
Yes. Obviously you can not.