why the fuck would anyone stick ai shit on wikipedia that doesn't make any sense
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
558 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
58613 readers
4033 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"[The] main reasons that motivate editors to add AI-generated content: self-promotion, deliberate hoaxing, and being misinformed into thinking that the generated content is accurate and constructive," Lebleu said.
People suck
This is why we can’t have nice things
If anyone can survive the AI text apocalypse, it is wikipedia. They have been fending off and regulating article writing bots since someone coded up a US town article writer from the 2000 census (not the 2010 or 2020 census, the 2000 census. This bot was writing wikipedia articles in 2003)
Well, for everything except fictional articles. Thats the hardest for them, historically
Hopefully they tightened things up after the Scots incident.
Unleashing generative AI on the world was basically the information equivalent of jumping headfirst into Kessler Syndrome.
For the uninitiated like me:
The Kessler syndrome (also called the Kessler effect,[1][2] collisional cascading, or ablation cascade), proposed by NASA scientists Donald J. Kessler and Burton G. Cour-Palais in 1978, is a scenario in which the density of objects in low Earth orbit (LEO) due to space pollution is numerous enough that collisions between objects could cause a cascade in which each collision generates space debris that increases the likelihood of further collisions.
Good call, thank you.
Also: Referencing Wikipedia in this context is kinda funny.
I did think that. :) It's just.... So good. I hope it never enshitifies. God help us.
Further proof that humanity neither deserves nor is capable of having nice things.
Who would set up an AI bot to shit all over the one remaining useful thing on the Internet, and why?
I'm sure the answer is either 'for the lulz' or 'late-stage capitalism', but still: historically humans aren't usually burning down libraries on purpose.
historically humans aren't usually burning down libraries on purpose.
Sometimes they are, Baghdad springs to mind, I'm sure there are other examples. And this library is online so there's less chance of getting caught with a can of petrol and a box of matches.
Then there's every authoritarian regime that tries to ban or burn specific types of books. What we're seeing here could be more like that - an attempt to muddy the waters or introduce misinformation on certain topics.
Yeah but the other thing about humanity is it's mostly harmless. Edits can be reverted, articles can be locked. Wikipedia will be fine.
Edits can be reverted, articles can be locked.
Sure, but the vandalism has to be identified first. And thar takes time and effort.
Wikipedia relies on sources, and humans choosing the sources like newspapers. And those newspapers are more and more inside a "bubble" that rejects any evidence or reporting presented by a competing bubble.
Right now wikipedia is covering up one of the greatest acts of mass murder of our times, because the newspapers are covering it up, or rejecting evidence because it's by the "enemy". Part of this is a defensive posture against AI bots and enemy disinformation.
historically humans aren't usually burning down libraries on purpose.
How on earth have you come to this conclusion.
To be fair, it's usually to effect cultural genocide. It's not average people burning libraries, it's usually some kind of authoritarian regime.
* looks around and gestures broadly in agreement*
State actors could be interested in doing that. Same with the internet archive attacks.
Because basement losers can't conquer and raze libraries to the ground.
The internet has shown that assumed anonymity result in people fucking with other people's lives for the hell of it. Viruses, trolling, etc. This is just the next stage of it because of a new easy to use tool.
Florida says hello. A bunch of other places too, sadly:-(.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Best case is that the model used to generate this content was originally trained by data from Wikipedia so it "just" generates a worse, hallucinated "variant" of the original information. Goes to show how stupid this idea is.
Imagine this in a loop: AI trained by Wikipedia that then alters content on Wikipedia, which in turn gets picked up by the next model trained. It would just get worse and worse, similar to how converting the same video over and over again yields continuously worse results.
See also: model collapse
(Which is more or less just regression towards the mean with more steps)
Yes, this is what many of us worry will become the internet in general. AI content generated on from AI trained on AI garbage.
AI bots can trivially outpace humans.
I was just discussing with a friend of mine how we're rapidly approaching the dead internet. At some point, many websites will likely just be chat bots talking to other chat bots, which then gets used to train further chat bots. Human made content is already becoming harder and harder to find on algorithm heavy websites like Reddit and facebooks suite of sites. The bots can easily outpace any algorithmic changes they might make to help deter them, but my fb using family members all constantly block those weird Jesus accounts and they still show up constantly
A very similar situation to that analysed in this paper that was recently published. The quality of what is generated degrades significantly.
Although they mostly investigate replacing the data with ai generated data in each step, so I doubt the effect will be as pronounced in practice. Human writing will still be included and even curation of ai generated text by people can skew the distribution of the training data (as the process by these editors would inevitably do, as reasonable text could get through the cracks.)
AI model makers are very well aware of this and there is a move from ingesting everything to curating datasets more aggressively. Data prep ia something many upstarts have no idea is critical, but everyone is learning about, sometimes the hard way.
Eventually every article just reads "Delve delve delve delve delve delve delve."
Every article would end up being the philosophy page.
As for why this is happening, the cleanup crew thinks there are three primary reasons.
"[The] main reasons that motivate editors to add AI-generated content: self-promotion, deliberate hoaxing, and being misinformed into thinking that the generated content is accurate and constructive,"
That last one. Ouch.
“[The] main reasons that motivate editors to add AI-generated content: self-promotion, deliberate hoaxing, and being misinformed into thinking that the generated content is accurate and constructive,”
I think the main driver behind people misinformed about AI content comes from the fact that outside of tech people, most have no idea that AI will:
-
100% make up answers to things it doesn't know because either the sample size of data they have ingested was to small or was bad. And it will do this with the same robot confidence you get for any other answer.
-
AI that has been fed to much other AI generated content will begin to "hallucinate" and give some wild outputs, very similar to humans suffering from schizophrenia. And again these answers will be given as "fact" with the same robotic confidence.
The vast majority of people think they're the good guys...
Well, I was in doubt, so I asked the AI whether I could trust the answers and it told me not to worry about it. That must mean that I only get accurate answers, right? /s
I hate to post because I have loved and trusted Wikipedia for years, but the fact that there are folks out there who equally trust what AI tools generate just baffles me.
The signal to noise ratio is so low these days. There's so much information out there but everyone wants to profit from you before you can get it. Even worse, the people with good information generally can't buy as big a megaphone as the people who profit from lying to you.
Honestly, I think humans have been more likely to believe an easy lie than a hard truth all along, but it's easier than ever these days.
Jesus Christ. The amount of absolute bellends in the world never ceases to confound me.
They used to be contained, every village has their idiot. Now that the internet is the global village, all the formerly isolated idiots have a place to chat.
Don't worry, it's not as bad as the title suggests. The attack on Internet Archive is far, far worse. It's obviously a bit of a problem, though.
load more comments
(2 replies)
fights back by posting human-generated nonsense
StarshipTroopers-ImDoingMyPart.tar.gz
AI is the buggest pile of dogshit to come out of tech in the history of the human race
view more: next ›