Everybody loves Wikipedia, the surprisingly serious encyclopedia and the last gasp of Old Internet idealism!
(90 seconds later)
We regret to inform you that people write credulous shit about “AI” on Wikipedia as if that is morally OK.
Both of these are somewhat less bad than they were when I first noticed them, but they’re still pretty bad. I am puzzled at how the latter even exists. I had thought that there were rules against just making a whole page about a neologism, but either I’m wrong about that or the “rules” aren’t enforced very strongly.
You must log in or register to comment.
my post: “Created: Monday, February 3rd, 2025 at 7:44:32 PM GMT+02:00”
wikipedia article: “11:58, 3 March 2025”
worst game of internet sweepstakes ever
Reflection (artificial intelligence) is dreck of a high order. It cites one arXiv post after another, along with marketing materials directly from OpenAI and Google themselves… How do the people who write this shit dress themselves in the morning without pissing into their own socks?
and of course, not a single citation for the intro paragraph, which has some real bangers like:
This process involves self-assessment and internal deliberation, aiming to enhance reasoning accuracy, minimize errors (like hallucinations), and increase interpretability. Reflection is a form of “test-time compute,” where additional computational resources are used during inference.
because LLMs don’t do self-assessment or internal deliberation, nothing can stop these fucking things from hallucinating, and the only articles I can find for “test-time compute” are blog posts from all the usual suspects that read like ads and some arXiv post apparently too shitty to use as a citation
on the one hand, I want to try find which
vendor marketing material“research paper” that paragraph was copied from, but on the other… after yesterday’s adventures trying to get data out of PDFs and c.o.n.s.t.a.n.t.l.y getting “hey how about this LLM? it’s so good![0]” search results, I’m fucking exhausted[0]: also most of these are paired with pages of claims of competence and feature boasts, and then a quiet “psssst: also it’s a service and you send us your private data and we’ll do with it whatever we want” as hidden as they can manage
From topic and lack of citation I just assumed that they had an LLM write it.
The prompt engineering article has 61 sources. Why should it not exist? What’s your source for that?
If the vibe coding article violates the rules, nominate it for deletion and cite the rules then.
Please acquaint yourself with the definition of the word latter on your way to the egress.
no thx, nobody came here for you to assign them tedious homework
Its fine if you don’t want to do the ‘homework,’ but op doesn’t get to complain about the rules not being enforced on the notoriously democratic editable-by-anyone wikipedia and refuse to take up the trivial ‘homework’ of starting the rule violation procedure. The website is inherently a ‘be the change you want to see in the world’ platform.
there’s something fucking hilarious about you and your friend coming here to lecture us about how Wikipedia works, but explaining the joke to you is also going to be tedious as shit and I don’t have any vegan nacho fries or junior mints to improve my mood
The “trivial” procedure for suggesting that an article be deleted was evidently written by the kids who liked programming their parents’ VCR.
oh yeah, I’m waiting for David to wake up so he can read the words
the trivial ‘homework’ of starting the rule violation procedure
and promptly explode, cause fielding deletion requests from people like our guests who don’t understand wikipedia’s rules but assume they’re, ah, trivial, is probably a fair-sized chunk of his workload
Counterpoint: I get to complain about whatever I want.
I could write a lengthy comment about how a website that is nominally editable by “anyone” is in practice a walled garden of acronym-spouting rules lawyers who will crush dissent by a thousand duck nibbles. I could elaborate upon that observation with an analogy to Masto reply guys and FOSS culture at large.
Or I could ban you for fun. I haven’t decided yet. I’m kind of giddy from eating a plate of vegan nacho fries and a box of Junior Mints.
acronym-spouting rules lawyers who will crush dissent by a thousand duck nibbles
hey now, my duck nibbling is thoroughly weaponised
For posterity: English Wikipedia is deletionist, so your burden of proof is entirely backwards. I know this because I quit English WP over it; the sibling replies are from current editors who have fully internalized it. English WP’s notability bar is very high and not moved by quantity of sources; it also has suffered from many cranks over the years, and we should not legitimize cranks merely because they publish on ArXiv.
More distressingly the vibe coding article seems to have been nominated and approved for the “Did you know” section with very little discussion: webarchive:wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know/Approved#Vibe_coding
also lol @
Vibe coding, sometimes spelled vibecoding
cause I love the kayfabe linguistic drift for a term that’s not even a month old that’s probably seen more use in posts making fun of the original tweet than any of the shit the Wikipedia article says
Promptfondler (from Old French prompette-fondeleur)
did you know: you too can make your dreams come true with Vibe Coding ™ thanks to this article’s sponsors:
Replit Agent, Cursor Composer, Pythagora, Bolt, Lovable, and Cline
and other shameful assholes with cash to burn trying to astroturf a term from a month old Twitter brainfart into relevance
“Vibe coding? Back in my day, we called it teledildonics.”
this would explain so much about the self-declared 10x programmers I’ve met
10x programmers used to be a real thing but they got obsoleted by TOPS-20.
