- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
For one month beginning on October 5, I ran an experiment: Every day, I asked ChatGPT 5 (more precisely, its “Extended Thinking” version) to find an error in “Today’s featured article”. In 28 of these 31 featured articles (90%), ChatGPT identified what I considered a valid error, often several. I have so far corrected 35 such errors.
Speaking very generally, it’s still conceding an amount of human intelligence and there are problems with it that are worth talking about, but it’s a use of AI that at least defers to human judgment, and as long as users are still personally researching and writing their own edits I honestly don’t hate it. Much.
it’s mostly outsourcing attention, which is pretty acceptable for a large project like wikipedia.
That’s my main use for LLMs
personally i have separate linters, formatters and structure markers that don’t raise the temperature of my apartment when in use, but you do you.
Right - I won’t call it a good thing to let people de-skill on reading comprehension skills, but they’re donating their labour to a public benefit! I’m hardly going to scold them as if I was their professor.
my thought is mainly that there aren’t enough hours in the day to read and check everything on wikipedia. there’s a reason the scots vandalism went unnoticed so long, people just don’t have the time.