A technology can be extremely useful despite not being perfect. Failure cases can be taken into consideration rationally without turning it into a moral panic.
You have no ability to edit Wikipedia to stop it from lying. Somebody can come along and re-add the lie a millisecond later.
No, that is not accurate. Wikipedia has a number of guardrails and such an edit war would be detected and investigated. Possibly the page protected and the offending IP or account banned.
Wikipedia edits are monitored and vandalism is taken seriously, especially on the more important pages.
> such an edit war would be detected and investigated.
As far as I understand Wikipedia’s rules, no it wouldn’t. Wikipedia considers it an edit war when there are three reverts in a 24 hour period. So if you remove a lie and somebody reverts that change, that is not considered an edit war. If they do it twice, it’s still not an edit war. If they do it three times, but over a greater time period than a single day, it’s still not an edit war. If somebody else re-adds the lie, it’s not an edit war either.
Regardless, it’s not important. The point I am making is that as a user, you cannot be sure that Wikipedia is not serving up lies to you.
No, I didn't ignore your point. I invalidated it because you're comparing apples to oranges.
And yes, I do have the ability to edit Wikipedia. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. I can go on any page I want, right now, and make changes to the page. If someone readds a lie, then eventually we can hit consensus as other editors enter the discussion. Wikipedia's basis is formed by consensus and controlled by individuals like you and I.
ChatGPT is not. It is controlled by one company; I cannot go edit the weights of ChatGPT to prevent it from lying about my app or anything else I do. I can only petition them to change it and hope that either I have enough clout or have a legal basis to do so.
You have ignored my point.
A technology can be extremely useful despite not being perfect. Failure cases can be taken into consideration rationally without turning it into a moral panic.
You have no ability to edit Wikipedia to stop it from lying. Somebody can come along and re-add the lie a millisecond later.
No, that is not accurate. Wikipedia has a number of guardrails and such an edit war would be detected and investigated. Possibly the page protected and the offending IP or account banned.
Wikipedia edits are monitored and vandalism is taken seriously, especially on the more important pages.
> such an edit war would be detected and investigated.
As far as I understand Wikipedia’s rules, no it wouldn’t. Wikipedia considers it an edit war when there are three reverts in a 24 hour period. So if you remove a lie and somebody reverts that change, that is not considered an edit war. If they do it twice, it’s still not an edit war. If they do it three times, but over a greater time period than a single day, it’s still not an edit war. If somebody else re-adds the lie, it’s not an edit war either.
Regardless, it’s not important. The point I am making is that as a user, you cannot be sure that Wikipedia is not serving up lies to you.
No, I didn't ignore your point. I invalidated it because you're comparing apples to oranges.
And yes, I do have the ability to edit Wikipedia. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. I can go on any page I want, right now, and make changes to the page. If someone readds a lie, then eventually we can hit consensus as other editors enter the discussion. Wikipedia's basis is formed by consensus and controlled by individuals like you and I.
ChatGPT is not. It is controlled by one company; I cannot go edit the weights of ChatGPT to prevent it from lying about my app or anything else I do. I can only petition them to change it and hope that either I have enough clout or have a legal basis to do so.
You’ve changed your position. This is what you originally said:
> how do I edit ChatGPT so it stops lying then?
This is what you have changed to:
> And yes, I do have the ability to edit Wikipedia.
You do not have the ability to edit Wikipedia so it stops lying, which is the relevant factor here.