Everybody loves Wikipedia, the surprisingly serious encyclopedia and the last gasp of Old Internet idealism!

(90 seconds later)

We regret to inform you that people write credulous shit about “AI” on Wikipedia as if that is morally OK.

Both of these are somewhat less bad than they were when I first noticed them, but they’re still pretty bad. I am puzzled at how the latter even exists. I had thought that there were rules against just making a whole page about a neologism, but either I’m wrong about that or the “rules” aren’t enforced very strongly.

  • self@awful.systemsEnglish
    14·
    18 hours ago

    and of course, not a single citation for the intro paragraph, which has some real bangers like:

    This process involves self-assessment and internal deliberation, aiming to enhance reasoning accuracy, minimize errors (like hallucinations), and increase interpretability. Reflection is a form of “test-time compute,” where additional computational resources are used during inference.

    because LLMs don’t do self-assessment or internal deliberation, nothing can stop these fucking things from hallucinating, and the only articles I can find for “test-time compute” are blog posts from all the usual suspects that read like ads and some arXiv post apparently too shitty to use as a citation

    • froztbyte@awful.systemsEnglish
      9·
      17 hours ago

      on the one hand, I want to try find which vendor marketing material “research paper” that paragraph was copied from, but on the other… after yesterday’s adventures trying to get data out of PDFs and c.o.n.s.t.a.n.t.l.y getting “hey how about this LLM? it’s so good![0]” search results, I’m fucking exhausted

      [0]: also most of these are paired with pages of claims of competence and feature boasts, and then a quiet “psssst: also it’s a service and you send us your private data and we’ll do with it whatever we want” as hidden as they can manage