If you’re writing a research paper, which is when you were taught not to cite wikipedia in school, you should also not cite chatgpt. You’re talking about business, where no one gave a fuck before and they definitely don’t give a fuck meow
People never really cared about information hygiene.
They tried to teach it at the “dawn of the internet for the average person” back then. The lesson was supposed to be to follow Wikipedia’s links, which do cite primary sources.
This is true.
But it turns out, no one cares. Schools failed. People fundamentally want validation of what feels good, and social media took full advantage of this.
I’m a early Boomer and there isn’t any day where I don’t learn something new. Boomers don’t know everything, but can aport experience. Not the same to get old with an open mind, or stop thinking and reasoning in youth or never didº, only accumulating wrinkles instead of knowledge and experience.
my theory has always been the textbook publishers told teachers that Wikipedia was bad because its online and anyone can edit it, whilst the textbooks are “peer reviewed” and only have “truthful information”.
meanwhile, modern textbooks are being generated via chatgpt.
I don’t think it requires being bought off to understand that a research paper should rely on primary sources and original thought where possible. Obviously incorporating analysis of those sources and potential biases is important, but you want to be able to form your own conclusions based on unfiltered information. Otherwise it’s not really a research paper, more just a summary or review of other people’s research.
I think the idea was that authors / professors of textbooks have a reputation to loose if they publish bullshit. Like they are the authority on a topic and if wrong they loose that status / prestige.
I know what information I can find on Wikipedia and I know that I can find additional information in the sources. Obviously I do not only use Wikipedia.
Not sure if you’re joking, but that is what I’d want. A very samll / compact, open source/weights AI model that runs locally, can interpret what I’m looking for and then queries encyclopedias, or a local wikipedia, science paper abstracts, articles and search backends (ideally EU funded) to find the shit I’m looking for. Including sources to back up what it’s telling me.
We need to somehow democratize search engines and AI models could be immensely useful for this. Even just filtering out the AI slop. Too bad there was such a kneejerk backlash to AI in firefox.
There isn’t any lightweight local LLM which give valid results, or you dedicate >90GB for it, or you permits that it connect to the online source servers, wasting a lot of bandwith. You can use locally only AIs dedicated to certain tasks, eg for summarizing documents or in some graphic apps to automate some functions or for accounting in the office, but forget an local alround Assistant.
If you want an AI for certain tasks, use search assistants, like DuckAI or Andisearch, which are good for summarize results fom Webpages without the need of big and large lengage models, being privacy friendly, or use a specific one which you can anonym without account, eg one of those from HuggingFace or one specific from Futurepedia, there you can filter what you need.
We already have this! It’s called a tool harness, and basically any kind of local agent framework supports it already, as well as a whole slew of locally runnable LLMs in every size.
Nothing really is that’s why you got to be a critical thinker and grab it by the horns. Learning is doing. The masters curate the world to their benefit and if you are lucky you cut a path in. It is not what you do but what you won’t do trying to avoid the blow back of others stupid choices. In a modern world of idol whoreship it is hard to fit in.
I don’t know. This just seems like the logical next step from “just Google it.” I’m under the impression that search results were tailored for the user and even if they weren’t most of the time Google just seemed like a tool for confirmation bias, not education.
That said, Wikipedia isn’t a valid source due to the fact that it can be subject to change in ways that can make it difficult to check later. That saaaaaid, Wikipedia has sources you can potentially investigate and cite soooo… I mean… Just saying.
RetroFed
Thales
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp
If you’re writing a research paper, which is when you were taught not to cite wikipedia in school, you should also not cite chatgpt. You’re talking about business, where no one gave a fuck before and they definitely don’t give a fuck meow
People never really cared about information hygiene.
They tried to teach it at the “dawn of the internet for the average person” back then. The lesson was supposed to be to follow Wikipedia’s links, which do cite primary sources.
This is true.
But it turns out, no one cares. Schools failed. People fundamentally want validation of what feels good, and social media took full advantage of this.
Worse the people which use Fox News, Truth Social and a TikTok influencer as valid source.
Or Lemmy…
Its simple actually.
Boomers are always correct, you are always wrong.
… see how this works?
Thats the underlying consistent principle that is held to. Everything else is inconsistent fluff.
Whatever they think is neat, is correct. Whatever they think is stupid, is wrong.
They own the media, they run the culture.
https://archive.org/details/seaoftranquility_20241114?start=3375.1 (cued) (for a few seconds)
(cue to the start of the song: https://archive.org/details/seaoftranquility_20241114?start=3342)
I’m a early Boomer and there isn’t any day where I don’t learn something new. Boomers don’t know everything, but can aport experience. Not the same to get old with an open mind, or stop thinking and reasoning in youth or never didº, only accumulating wrinkles instead of knowledge and experience.
º
https://youtube.com/shorts/BxBWb0-TMho
my theory has always been the textbook publishers told teachers that Wikipedia was bad because its online and anyone can edit it, whilst the textbooks are “peer reviewed” and only have “truthful information”.
meanwhile, modern textbooks are being generated via chatgpt.
In other words, McGraw-Hill bought them off and discredited independent sources.
I don’t think it requires being bought off to understand that a research paper should rely on primary sources and original thought where possible. Obviously incorporating analysis of those sources and potential biases is important, but you want to be able to form your own conclusions based on unfiltered information. Otherwise it’s not really a research paper, more just a summary or review of other people’s research.
No professor worth a shit What tell students that a textbook is peer-reviewed. They aren’t.
I think the idea was that authors / professors of textbooks have a reputation to loose if they publish bullshit. Like they are the authority on a topic and if wrong they loose that status / prestige.
AI implementation in every Browser has me looking up information direktly on wikipedia.org without going through a search engine first.
Most information isn’t on Wikipedia
I know what information I can find on Wikipedia and I know that I can find additional information in the sources. Obviously I do not only use Wikipedia.
A lot of it is: one just has to look for it a bit.
Not sure if you’re joking, but that is what I’d want. A very samll / compact, open source/weights AI model that runs locally, can interpret what I’m looking for and then queries encyclopedias, or a local wikipedia, science paper abstracts, articles and search backends (ideally EU funded) to find the shit I’m looking for. Including sources to back up what it’s telling me.
We need to somehow democratize search engines and AI models could be immensely useful for this. Even just filtering out the AI slop. Too bad there was such a kneejerk backlash to AI in firefox.
There isn’t any lightweight local LLM which give valid results, or you dedicate >90GB for it, or you permits that it connect to the online source servers, wasting a lot of bandwith. You can use locally only AIs dedicated to certain tasks, eg for summarizing documents or in some graphic apps to automate some functions or for accounting in the office, but forget an local alround Assistant.
If you want an AI for certain tasks, use search assistants, like DuckAI or Andisearch, which are good for summarize results fom Webpages without the need of big and large lengage models, being privacy friendly, or use a specific one which you can anonym without account, eg one of those from HuggingFace or one specific from Futurepedia, there you can filter what you need.
We already have this! It’s called a tool harness, and basically any kind of local agent framework supports it already, as well as a whole slew of locally runnable LLMs in every size.
Nothing really is that’s why you got to be a critical thinker and grab it by the horns. Learning is doing. The masters curate the world to their benefit and if you are lucky you cut a path in. It is not what you do but what you won’t do trying to avoid the blow back of others stupid choices. In a modern world of idol whoreship it is hard to fit in.
The difference is AI makes line go up.
Just use the sources cited in Wikipedia
Fuck that, they straight up accepted sources that cited Wikipedia.
I totally didn’t cite a book I have never seen in my master thesis because it was cited by Wikipedia
And ChatGPT cites Wikipedia
It was always kinda a spectrum anyways
I don’t know. This just seems like the logical next step from “just Google it.” I’m under the impression that search results were tailored for the user and even if they weren’t most of the time Google just seemed like a tool for confirmation bias, not education.
That said, Wikipedia isn’t a valid source due to the fact that it can be subject to change in ways that can make it difficult to check later. That saaaaaid, Wikipedia has sources you can potentially investigate and cite soooo… I mean… Just saying.
“infuriating” you mean this right?