“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 💀
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.
“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.
Scroll back up and check the link I posted.