Thread 106216054

Reminder that 10 years ago people at the senior corporate level (team lead/ architect) didn't trust wikipedia because it was written by random people without proper credentials or education, and now everyone suddenly trusts AI that will literally hallucinate, make up facts and lie to your face

>>106216054 (OP)
Nobody actually trusts AI, not even the people making it.

>>106216054 (OP)
You could review changes and hold people somewhat accountable for blatantly lying on wikipedia, so they shunned it. They can control people more better using a faceless robot.

>>106216120
wikipedia is more politically biased than ever; look up anything remotely contentious and i guarantee it will be edit-locked.
"the encyclopedia anyone can edit" indeed. lol, lmao.

>>106216054 (OP)
>having academic credentials makes you smart xd
cringe. if it was that important you'd do research yourself and not rely on pozzed sources or ""ai"" aka wiki/redd*t/stackoverflow aggregator.

it's over for lazy brainlets

>>106216145
In the old days team leads and architects had academic credentials themselves

>>106216120
Wikipedia is automated. Public review is just a lie.

>>106216054 (OP)
Am happy with that seems more humane and even smart

You don't need facts you need hallucinatioms

>>106216425
All fun and games until AI hallucinates a tax report

frankly I never liked it. it claims to be a democratic source of knowledge but you can't publish or edit anything they'll disagree with and it has to have sources cited in a specific format

nobody has ever lied in a news article. nobody has ever lied in a textbook. nobody has ever lied about their own experiences. obviously.

don't care
didn't ask
i'm here to fuck robots and chew bubble gum
and i'm all out of gum

>>106216054 (OP)
I think you mean they weren't googling answers for tech questions.

But they were.

>>106216054 (OP)
>Reminder that 10 years ago people at the senior corporate level (team lead/ architect) didn't trust wikipedia because it was written by random people without proper credentials or education
Maybe they verified things elsewhere but they certainly used it heavily. I was an intern in 2015 and seniors definitely relied on Wikipedia all the time.

>>106216151
wtf? If anything that's more true now than it used to be.

Also 2015 is "the old days" now?

Criticism of Wikipedia is anti Semitic.
Oy vey!

>>106216054 (OP)
AI tuned behind. So most answers ain't *dictated* by AI.

>>106216054 (OP)
I've also more seen people citing wikipedia as a source and/or using it to resolve an argument in the last few years. I guess that did decline with the coming of slopGPT but the fact people are becoming dumber and more trusting is real.
from as early as I can remember, as a kid, I saw literally everywhere advice on not to trust the internet or especially wikipedia. even my teachers would say that and not accept it as a source reference on an assignment.

>>106219257
Marie Rose could resolve any argument

>>106216078
If we ignore normies, you are right.

>>106216054 (OP)
Ten years ago you needed an anti-virus program for Windows to deal with malware, now you don't need it. Microsoft includes the malware for free, and it used to be that the risk of electronic fraud was entirely on the user if they used warez/cracks, or entered credentials on phishing/sketchy store pages-now your identity can be stolen entirely because someone at the clinic/hospital/bank/school/college/university or your place of employment doesn't know how to use a computer. The latter makes me the most upset, I was religiously committed to my infosec, but it didn't save me from a health provider storing everything in clear text.

>>106216054 (OP)
honestly the disdain against wikipedia by academics is more about wanting people to write based on primary sources and not secondary sources

>>106219847
only if my cock was the dispute.