Who are you to say LLMs have never provided value to the user? I last used an agent earlier today and it finished a job that would've taken me a lot longer to complete without assistance.
I suggest everybody here take a look at Matthew White's excellent WikiWatch. Despite the last entry being 2006, it is still a very valuable criticism of Wikipedia today.
I often find myself clicking a link that takes me to an anchor on another page that no longer exists. Surely a system could be implemented to remove these?
> The amount of comments about white superiority/inferiority with no awareness of how absurd it is...
I haven't seen any. Could you give me an example?
> Is this site now a nazi bar? Damn.
Please don't turn Hacker News into a site for endlessly regurgitating lame social media "gotchas" or tropes. There are already many, many websites for that.
When I made that comment. This article had only 5 comment threads. And three of them talked about how "it's okay to be white " and superiority. All dead now just like my comment .
If you make a claim based on the supposed existence of something, be prepared to back the existence of said thing up. It's not "sealioning"[1][2] to want evidence for an extraordinary claim.
[1] Sealioning is an example of an blanket phrase that can rarely be applied correctly but more often that not is used by anti-intellectuals who have no other method to refute a statement or inquiry to their line of thought. Other examples being "whataboutism" (for the act of pointing out hypocrisy) and "slippery slope fallacy" (which is used to ridicule logical cause and effect statements)
[2] I find it humorous that the example given is of somebody prejudiced against an entire species for no logical reason (and who wants said species eradicated), who then refuses to justify it to the creature they are prejudiced against.
It almost feels as if the comic was originally written to justify racism and the author then realised how unpopular that would be. (The author attempts to refute this in an addendum but ends up using many words to say nothing, instead refuting a criticism of the character's visual design.)
I think I'm still using a version that was on a magazine coverdisk that was weirdly distributed as a full-version freebie to advertise the release of the all new lock-in edition.
I'd say his lack of acknowledgment of Larry Sanger is actually quite useful, as it is a perfect and irrefutable example that Wikipedia has no qualms with omitting information and twisting the truth to serve a narrative.
> In late 2005, Wales edited his biographical entry on the English Wikipedia. Writer Rogers Cadenhead drew attention to logs showing that in his edits to the page, Wales had removed references to Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.[53][54] Sanger commented that "having seen edits like this, it does seem that Jimmy is attempting to rewrite history. But this is a futile process because, in our brave new world of transparent activity and maximum communication, the truth will out."[20][55] Wales was also observed to have modified references to Bomis in a way that was characterized as downplaying the sexual nature of some of his former company's products.[16][20] Though Wales argued that his modifications were solely intended to improve the accuracy of the content,[20] he apologized for editing his biography, a practice generally discouraged on Wikipedia.[20][55]
This promotional website is created by the Wikimedia Foundation (it says so in the About page), and "has no qualms with omitting information" (GGP's claim), as it fails to mention that Jimmy Wales is co-founder of Wikipedia alongside Larry Sanger. By contrast, Wikipedia does not omit this fact.
Wikipedia is extremely biased and has a lot of deliberate misinformation, so I wouldn't trust it for anything except as a basic starting point for information gathering alongside a web search. Wikipedia's founder itself has denounced it for its bias.
reply