Wikipedia, but written by AIs
www.greaterwrong.com
I got this crazy idea; I wonder if anyone could try it. Let's make an online encyclopedia, similar to Wikipedia, with one difference: all articles would be edited by AIs. Why? (I mean, other than "because it's possible and sounds kinda cool".) First, because it's possible. If an AI can give you a report on a certain topic, it might as well create an encyclopedia article on the topic. But unlike asking the AI directly, when you read the encyclopedia you know that you are reading the same version everyone else is.[1] This avoids the problem of the AI telling you exactly what it thinks you want to hear. No more sycophancy - now the AI tells you what it believes.[2] Even if it lies, e.g. because the system prompt commands it to say certain things or avoid saying certain things, at least it lies the same way to everyone, in public.[3] We get common knowledge, which recently seems like an endangered species.
  • jackr@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPEnglish
    16·
    6 days ago

    also lmao @ one of the comments꧇

    Maybe future versions of AI chatbots could use something like this as a shared persistent memory that all chatbot instances could reference as a common ground truth. The only trick would be getting the system to use sound epistemology and reliably report uncertainty instead of hallucinations.

    This will fix all problems with AI if only we fix the fundamental flaw in the architecture guys!

    • scruiser@awful.systemsEnglish
      6·
      5 days ago

      I keep seeing this sort of thinking on /r/singularity, people who are sure LLMs will be great once they have memory/ground-truth factual knowledge/some other feature that in fact the promptfarmers have already tried (and failed) to add via fancier prompting (i.e. RAG) or fine-tuning and would require a massive reinvention of the entire paradigm to actually fix. That, or they describe what basically amounts to a reinvention of the concept of expert systems like Cyc.