this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
423 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

83896 readers
7167 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] infeeeee@lemmy.zip 234 points 3 weeks ago (15 children)

Saved you a click:

After much debate, the new policy is in effect: Wikipedia authors are not allowed to use LLMs for generating or rewriting article content. There are two primary exceptions, though.

First, editors can use LLMs to suggest refinements to their own writing, as long as the edits are checked for accuracy. In other words, it’s being treated like any other grammar checker or writing assistance tool. The policy says, “ LLMs can go beyond what you ask of them and change the meaning of the text such that it is not supported by the sources cited.”

The second exemption for LLMs is with translation assistance. Editors can use AI tools for the first pass at translating text, but they still need to be fluent enough in both languages to catch errors. As with regular writing refinements, anyone using LLMs also has to check that incorrect information hasn’t been injected.

[–] RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world 160 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

AIbros: we're creating God!!!

AI users: it can do translation & reformating pretty well but you got to check it's not chatting shit

[–] halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 61 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

The takeaway from all LLM-based AI is the user needs to be smart enough to do whatever they're asking anyway. All output needs to be verified before being used or relied upon.

The "AI" is just streamlining the process to save time.

Relying on it otherwise is stupid and just proves instantly that you are incompetent.

[–] Zagorath@quokk.au 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

the user needs to be smart enough to do whatever they're asking anyway

I'm gonna say that's ideal but not quite necessary. What's needed is that the user is capable of properly verifying the output. Which anyone who could do it themselves definitely can, but it can be done more broadly. It's an easier skill to verify a result than it is to obtain that result. Think: how film critics don't necessarily need to be filmmakers, or the P=NP question in computer science.

[–] Pyro@programming.dev 8 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

But if the output has issues, what're you going to do, prompt it again? If you are only able to verify but not do the task, you cannot correct the AI's mistakes yourself.

[–] 42firehawk@fedinsfw.app 1 points 4 days ago

In Wikipedias case, you just fail to make an edit/new post. So you can verify if Ai can make a usable post up to standard with people who can verify but not make, hopefully saving enough time and bulk to help that group learn to make properly, as well as leave the ones Ai will fuck up to people who can do it right.

[–] Zagorath@quokk.au 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

At the risk of sounding like an overly obsequious AI… You know what, you're completely right. I'm honestly not sure what use case I was imagining when I wrote that last comment.

[–] Redjard@reddthat.com 3 points 3 weeks ago

Making text flow naturally, grouping and ordeeing information, good writing.

You can verify two textst have the same facts and information, yet one reads way better than the other. But writing a text that reads well is quite hard.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] youcantreadthis@quokk.au 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Fucking hate those anti human filth pushing slop into everything. I want to take one apart with power tools.

[–] Paranoidfactoid@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Scrollone@feddit.it 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Damn that movie was funny. I need to rewatch it.

[–] onlyhalfminotaur@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

It holds up better than any movie from the late 90s that I can think of.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)

Seems pretty reasonable to use it as a grammar checker. As long as it's not changing content, just form or readability, that seems like a pretty decent use for it, at least with a purely educational resource like Wikipedia.

[–] ji59@hilariouschaos.com 14 points 3 weeks ago

So, it should be used reasonably, as it should have always been.

[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

Liar. I already read the article before opening the comments. YOU SAVED ME NOTHING.

;-)

[–] Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 weeks ago

To save you another few clicks: this is the discussion (RfC) that implemented the changes, and the policy is linked at the top.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 49 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

An extremely measured and level-headed response. Kudos to Wikipedia for maintaining high standards.

[–] kazerniel@lemmy.world 64 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

It has to be said, they originally changed their stance due to the considerable editor pushback when they tried to introduce LLM summaries on the top of articles. So kudos to the editor community's resistance! ✊

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks ago

Good point. The real strength of Wikipedia truly lies in the editors

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SchwertImStein@lemmy.dbzer0.com 46 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

First, editors can use LLMs to suggest refinements to their own writing, as long as the edits are checked for accuracy.

translation assistance

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The former I'm still looking sideways at.

The latter, probably the only truly benevolent use of LLMs. And even then, you'll get plenty of grumbling.

[–] ThunderComplex@lemmy.today 9 points 3 weeks ago (12 children)

Eh I think this sounds ok. If you prompt an AI to improve your text, you submit that, and another human reviews that (and maybe asks you to make changes) it should be fine. I can see this giving more people the ability to make edits (e.g. non-native speakers)

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SunlessGameStudios@lemmy.world 27 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

I know at least one writing major who won an award from his volunteer work at Wikipedia. He did it as a hobby. They don't really need AI, they need people like him.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] yucandu@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Banned the people who openly admit it, anyway.

[–] aliser@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

there are ai detectors, although Im not sure about accuracy of those

[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 12 points 3 weeks ago

W Wikipedia,would be better to remove the exceptions but its fine tbh.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There should be only one exception: In case someone needs an example of an AI-generated text.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

LLMs are excellent tools for mapping one set of words and phrases to another, which is more or less exactly what you need out of a language translator.

[–] amateurcrastinator@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

But how do they know it is ai written?

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So in other words, when used responsibly as a tool with limitations, AI has it's uses? Though very environmentally unfriendly uses?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SuperPengato@scribe.disroot.org 4 points 3 weeks ago

Wikipedia has banned AI-generated text,

Smiling Gus

... with two exceptions

Glaring Gus

[–] webp@mander.xyz 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Why do they need AI at all? Wikipedia had existed long before it and was doing fine.

[–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 14 points 3 weeks ago

You could make that argument about any tool Wikipedia editors use. Why should they need spellcheck? They were typing words just fine before.

...except it just makes it easier to spot errors or get little suggestions on how you could reword something, and thus makes the whole process a little smoother.

It's not strictly necessary, but this could definitely be helpful to people for translation and proofreading. Doesn't have to be something people are wholly reliant on to still be beneficial to their ability to edit Wikipedia.

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Why should we use (insert tool) when we did just fine before?

Because when used correctly it can be great for helping you be more productive, and find errors/make improvements. The two exceptions are for grammar which AI does a surprisingly good job with. Would you have gotten mad if they used Grammarly >5 years ago? Having it rewrite an entire article is gonna be a bad idea, but asking it to rephrase a sentence, or check your phrasing for potential issues is a much safer thing. Not everyone who speaks Spanish uses it the same way. Some words are innocuous in some regions, but offensive in others.

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 4 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] eletes@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

There should be a Wikipedia LLM with a sole purpose to check that the tone of the text is objective and matches Wikipedia standards.

The LLM should flag any changes it would make and if the the changes are above a threshold, the edit should be flagged to be reviewed more by another human.

load more comments
view more: next ›