• AmbitiousProcess (they/them)@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      “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 💀

        • AmbitiousProcess (they/them)@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.