I have a seedbox and would totally be up to seed Wikipedia. Is there an easy way to automate that always the newest release gets seeded? I don’t want to do it manually every day.
Lots of motives, ranging from well-meaning editors trying to use it to help them improve, all the way to government propaganda machines trying to control narratives.
My personal pet theory is LLM companies themselves trying to poison the well of public information, so that you’re forced to use AI instead of traditional search/sites.
My behavior has already started shifting towards asking AI because I know google results are already flooded with AI nonsense, so I might as well use the latest model and ask it directly. But the last thing we need is our access to information tied up in an AI blackbox
But the last thing we need is our access to information tied up in an AI blackbox
The best course of action is surely therefore not to use the AI blackbox? Using it only helps it in the long run
Finding alternative search engines and giving them your patronage instead must be a better tactic to preventing the closing off of information to the common person
Many scenarios would account for that, i.e. changes in the newest version would not overwrite the old. And preferably there’d be an easy way to access all versions.
that’s a step beyond my of-the-dome abilities but if you look on the backup site, lots of partners keep “the last 5 good backups” and i’m sure there’s a way to automate what you’re describing
Main backups are only done a few times a year. I just grabbed this years and last years for now. I would suggest multiple versions just so you can potentially cross reference and see what changed between updates. For example, what was removed can be just as informative as what was added.
I have a seedbox and would totally be up to seed Wikipedia. Is there an easy way to automate that always the newest release gets seeded? I don’t want to do it manually every day.
Honestly, I wouldn’t want it updated constantly. AI and red hats are about to fuck it right to fuck town.
I don’t get AI editing Wikipedia. Surely AI gets it’s information from Wikipedia.
Lots of motives, ranging from well-meaning editors trying to use it to help them improve, all the way to government propaganda machines trying to control narratives.
My personal pet theory is LLM companies themselves trying to poison the well of public information, so that you’re forced to use AI instead of traditional search/sites.
My behavior has already started shifting towards asking AI because I know google results are already flooded with AI nonsense, so I might as well use the latest model and ask it directly. But the last thing we need is our access to information tied up in an AI blackbox
The best course of action is surely therefore not to use the AI blackbox? Using it only helps it in the long run
Finding alternative search engines and giving them your patronage instead must be a better tactic to preventing the closing off of information to the common person
If the ai gets its info from Wikipedia, and the ai edits Wikipedia, and you do your fact checking with Wikipedia, then the information has to be true.
🌌 🧠
Many scenarios would account for that, i.e. changes in the newest version would not overwrite the old. And preferably there’d be an easy way to access all versions.
that’s a step beyond my of-the-dome abilities but if you look on the backup site, lots of partners keep “the last 5 good backups” and i’m sure there’s a way to automate what you’re describing
Main backups are only done a few times a year. I just grabbed this years and last years for now. I would suggest multiple versions just so you can potentially cross reference and see what changed between updates. For example, what was removed can be just as informative as what was added.