Comment by PlatoIsADisease
8 hours ago
Isn't having a source the only thing that should be required. Why is AI speak bad?
I'm a embarrassed to be associated with US Millennials who are anti AI.
No one cares if you tie your legs together and finish a marathon in 12 hours. Just finish it in 3. Its more impressive.
EDIT:
I suppose people missed the first sentence:
>Isn't having a source the only thing that should be required.
>Isn't having a source the only thing that should be required.
>Isn't having a source the only thing that should be required.
There is usually no quality-control on AI-output, because people are lacking time and/or competence doing it, which are also the reasons why they are using AI.
And AI still can make up things, which might be fine in some random internet-comment, or some irrelevant article about something irrelevant happening somewhere in the world, but not with a knowledge-vault like Wikipedia.
And, we are talking here about Wikipedia. They are not just checking for AI, they are checking everything from everyone and have many many rules to ensure a certain level of quality. They can't check everything at once and fetch all problems immediately, but they are working step by step and over time.
> I'm a embarrassed to be associated with US Millennials who are anti AI.
You should be embarrassed for making such a statement.
> Why is AI speak bad
It's not inherently bad, but if something was written with AI the chances that it is low effort crap are much much much higher than if someone actually spent time and effort on it.
>Isn't having a source the only thing that should be required.
No, referencing and discussing it properly whilst retaining the tone and inferred meaning are equally as important. I can cite anything as a source that I want, but if I use it incorrectly or my analysis misses the point of the source then the reference source itself is pointless.