pull down to refresh


Typically, articles flagged for removal on Wikipedia enter a seven-day discussion period during which community members determine whether the site should delete the article. The newly adopted rule will allow Wikipedia administrators to circumvent these discussions if an article is clearly AI-generated and wasn’t reviewed by the person submitting it. That means looking for three main signs:
  • Writing directed toward the user, such as “Here is your Wikipedia article on…,” or “I hope that helps!”
  • “Nonsensical” citations, including those with incorrect references to authors or publications.
  • Non-existent references, like dead links, ISBNs with invalid checksums, or unresolvable DOIs.
These aren’t the only signs of AI Wikipedians are looking out for, though. As part of the WikiProject AI Cleanup, which aims to tackle an “increasing problem of unsourced, poorly written AI-generated content,” editors put together a list of phrases and formatting characteristics that chatbot-written articles typically exhibit.
Can SN also form such a strategy to deal with the AI slop?
60 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 14h
IMO Stacker.news already has a great system for filtering out crap. Zaps.
That's why I use this site over Nostr and many other sites. Content that is appreciated is zapped. Content that is garbage is down-zapped. I seriously doubt what Wikipedia is doing will work for long. It sounds like the people creating the bots that do this are rather lazy. If Wikipedia starts using these types of filter the AI bots will improve.
The funny thing to me is that people don't seem to get that the real issue isn't AIs. AI's just make it cheaper and easier to spam people. The problem is a lack of an incentive system or a COST system in most platforms. Even a small cost like what SN does is a major leap forward. The other thing is that punishing crap content will lead to better content being produced by humans and computers. I don't really care WHAT makes the words. I care about the words.
As @DarthCoin says over and over the pay to post model is what makes SN work. Its not really post to get paid. I think we forget about the incentives on most things. Its the root.
If sites like Wikipedia adopted bitcoin as SN has it would revolutionize it. Bitcoin can really transform so many things because it is freedom money. Internet money. And hard money. Few seem to get this. Even in bitcoin. Its not just NGU.
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 18h
How would you do that on an unmoderated territory? I just downzap and looking at the stats there's more than just I.
reply
Say that SN goes for tackling with AI slop. This would require a moderation team, which is sort of like centralizing the platform. They could also start deciding what post is bad/against their views etc. I'd say, downzapping posts are a good option for now. If it gets too worse, we can also do "flag as bot response", and if enough GENERIC members vote for it, then it can be removed or hidden with a blurb of being a bot response. I don't know if that would cost SATS/CC or not, maybe just 1?
reply