Wikipedia is the library of Alexandria and the amount of effort people put into keeping Wikipedia pages as accurate as possible should make every LLM supporter be ashamed with how inaccurate their models are if they use Wikipedia as training data
Idk it says Elon Musk is a co-founder of openAi on wikipedia. I haven’t found any evidence to suggest he had anything to do with it. Not very accurate reporting.
That is definitely how I view it. I’m always open to being shown I am wrong, with sufficient evidence, but on this, I believe you are accurate on this.
TBF, as soon as you move out of the English language the oversight of a million pair of eyes gets patchy fast. I have seen credible reports about Wikipedia pages in languages spoken by say, less than 10 million people, where certain elements can easily control the narrative.
But hey, some people always criticize wikipedia as if there was some actually 100% objective alternative out there, and that I disagree with.
I don’t browse Wikipedia much in languages other than English (mainly because those pages are the most up-to-date) but I can imagine there are some pages that straight up need to be in other languages. And given the smaller number of people reviewing edits in those languages, it can be manipulated to say what they want it to say.
I do agree on the last point as well. The fact that literally anyone can edit Wikipedia takes a small portion of the bias element out of the equation, but it is very difficult to not have some form of bias in any reporting. I more use Wikipedia as a knowledge source on scientific aspects which are less likely to have bias in their reporting
With all due respect, Wikipedia’s accuracy is incredibly variable. Some articles might be better than others, but a huge number of them (large enough to shatter confidence in the platform as a whole) contain factual errors and undisguised editorial biases.
It is likely that articles on past social events or individuals will have some bias, as is the case with most articles on those matters.
But, almost all articles on aspects of science are thoroughly peer reviewed and cited with sources. This alone makes Wikipedia invaluable as a source of knowledge.
Do not bring Wikipedia into this argument.
Wikipedia is the library of Alexandria and the amount of effort people put into keeping Wikipedia pages as accurate as possible should make every LLM supporter be ashamed with how inaccurate their models are if they use Wikipedia as training data
Idk it says Elon Musk is a co-founder of openAi on wikipedia. I haven’t found any evidence to suggest he had anything to do with it. Not very accurate reporting.
It is true, though.
Isn’t co-founder similar to being made partner at a firm? You can kind of buy your way in, even if you weren’t one of the real originals.
That is definitely how I view it. I’m always open to being shown I am wrong, with sufficient evidence, but on this, I believe you are accurate on this.
TBF, as soon as you move out of the English language the oversight of a million pair of eyes gets patchy fast. I have seen credible reports about Wikipedia pages in languages spoken by say, less than 10 million people, where certain elements can easily control the narrative.
But hey, some people always criticize wikipedia as if there was some actually 100% objective alternative out there, and that I disagree with.
Fair point.
I don’t browse Wikipedia much in languages other than English (mainly because those pages are the most up-to-date) but I can imagine there are some pages that straight up need to be in other languages. And given the smaller number of people reviewing edits in those languages, it can be manipulated to say what they want it to say.
I do agree on the last point as well. The fact that literally anyone can edit Wikipedia takes a small portion of the bias element out of the equation, but it is very difficult to not have some form of bias in any reporting. I more use Wikipedia as a knowledge source on scientific aspects which are less likely to have bias in their reporting
With all due respect, Wikipedia’s accuracy is incredibly variable. Some articles might be better than others, but a huge number of them (large enough to shatter confidence in the platform as a whole) contain factual errors and undisguised editorial biases.
It is likely that articles on past social events or individuals will have some bias, as is the case with most articles on those matters.
But, almost all articles on aspects of science are thoroughly peer reviewed and cited with sources. This alone makes Wikipedia invaluable as a source of knowledge.