• MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    A lot on here raging against the AI part while missing the simple.wikipedia part.

    Before you write something in rage, read this.

    • remon@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      I don’t think anyone would be upset if the extension would just redirect to simple wiki.

      It’s a bit like having bit of poop on your dinner plate. It still ruins the entire thing.

  • tehn00bi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Gross. Many of the technical articles on wiki are labors of love by talented people who do a great job breaking down complex concepts into fairly understandable terms.

  • a_person@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    If i have to rely on ai to read fucking wikipedia of all things then shoot me

    • Sentient Loom@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Yeah, at that point why bother with wikipedia anyway? If we’re just using AI then we’re just using AI (but I don’t want to just use AI ffs)

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        Because reading comprehension in lazy browsing mode on lemmy, missing the accessibility part but rage-baited by AI.

      • Dave.@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Why?

        Because people should be looking to expand their knowledge by getting into the details. By handwaving those details away with an AI summary that may or may not actually summarise the article correctly, people lose the opportunity to learn.

        If your attention span or cognitive capacity can’t get you through a basic Wikipedia article you need to work on that, for your own betterment.

        If you’re reading an article and you’re lost in the weeds you should be taking a step back to simpler concepts in Wikipedia (or elsewhere) first. Don’t trust a LLM to make a coherent summary about a topic you can’t understand, because you won’t be able to tell if it’s feeding you bullshit.

        • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          You’re missing the point. Some people have, for example, dyslexia. Which is the whole point of simple wikipedia. But it’s lacking articles.

          Of course there’s the danger of biased summaries by LLM training and promting.

      • Olap@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Because AI sucks at basically all tasks. And if I wanted the simple article I’d have visited the simple article. What you have done is denied entry to one of the most valuable resources ever created: wikipedia

      • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s AI.

        People really despise AI over here. No matter the context.

        • Sentient Loom@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          15 hours ago

          No matter the context.

          But sometimes because of the context, as in this case, where we want info vouched for by actual humans who did research and who can be held accountable, instead of more slop.

      • Sentient Loom@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        On something like wikipedia I only want words that are written by humans, vouched for by individuals who are accountable for what they write.

        If I want AI generated content I’ll go to an AI site.

        Humans are good at writing. We literally invented it and we’re experts. I’ll stop using wikipedia if they turn into a slop heap.