FaceDeer

It’s always interesting seeing the hatred of AI clash with the hatred of Reddit.

I’m “pro-AI” in the sense that I don’t knee-jerk oppose it.

I do in fact use AI to summarize things a lot. I’ve got an extension in Firefox that’ll do it to anything. It generally does a fine job.

And when I saw the reply it had plenty of downvotes already, because this is [email protected] and people are quick to pounce on anything that sounds like it might be pro-AI. You’re doing it yourself now, eyeing me suspiciously and asking if I’m one of those pro-AI people. Since there were plenty of downvotes the ambiguity of your comment meant my interpretation should not be surprising.

It just so happens that I am a Wikipedia editor, and I’m also pro-AI. I think this would be a very useful addition to Wikipedia, and I hope they get back to it when the dust settles from this current moral panic. I’m disappointed that they’re pausing an experiment because that means that the “discussion” that will be had now will have less actually meaningful information in it. What’s the point in a discussion without information to discuss?

No Wikipedia editor has to work on anything, if they don’t want to interact with those summaries then they don’t have to.

And no, it wasn’t quite obvious that that’s what you were talking about. You said “Looks like the vast majority of people disagree D:”. Since you were directly responding to a comment that had been heavily downvoted by the [email protected] community it was a reasonable assumption that those were the people you were talking about.

Disabling would necessarily mean disabling it wiki-wide,

No it wouldn’t, why would you think that? Wikipedia has plenty of optional features that can be enabled or disabled on a per-user basis.

I’m not talking about them at all. I’m talking about the [email protected] Fediverse community. It’s an anti-AI bubble. Just look at the vote ratios on the comments here. The guy you responded to initially said “Finally, a good use case for AI” and he got close to four downvotes per upvote. That’s what I’m talking about.

The target of these AI summaries are not Wikipedia editors, it’s Wikipedia readers. I see no reason to expect that target group to be particularly anti-AI. If Wikipedia editors don’t like it there’ll likely be an option to disable it.

Miguel’s claims are:

• The summaries are factually inaccurate
• Generating the summaries are environmentally damaging.
• Summarization is “largely already being done by someone”

There’s an anecdote in a talk page about one summary being inaccurate. A talk page anecdote is not a usable citation.

Survey results aren’t measuring environmental impact.

An the whole point of AI is to take the load off of someone having to do things manually. Assuming they actually are - even in this thread there are plenty of complaints about articles on Wikipedia that lack basic summaries and jump straight into detailed technical content.

A lot of stubs should be deleted until they are expanded

How does one expand a deleted article?

Wikipedia is not intended to be presenting a finished product, it’s an eternal work in progress. A stub is the start of an article. If you delete an article whenever it gets started that seems counterproductive.

You realize this is just a proposal at this stage? Their proposed next step is an experiment:

If we introduce a pre-generated summary feature as an opt-in feature on a the mobile site of a production wiki, we will be able to measure a clickthrough rate greater than 4%, ensure no negative effects to session length, pageviews, or internal referrals, and use this data to decide how and if we will further scale the summary feature.

Note, an opt-in clickthrough that they intend to monitor for further information on how to implement features like this and whether they should monitor them at all. As befits Wikipedia, they’re planning to base these decisions on evidence.

If “they’re gathering evidence and making proposals” is the threshold for you to jump ship to some other encyclopedia, I guess you do you. It’s not going to be much of an exodus though since nobody who actually uses Wikipedia has seen anything change.

The problem is that the bubble here are the editors who actually create the site and keep it running

No it isn’t, it’s the [email protected] Fediverse community.

What an unbiased view. Got any citations?

The vast majority of people in this particular bubble disagree.

I’ve found that AI is one of those topics that’s extremely polarizing, communities drive out dissenters and so end up with little awareness of what the general attitude in the rest of the world is.

Yes, and? The American unemployment rate is currently 4.2%. You’re imagining a scenario that’s simply not backed up by real evidence, just a single anecdote with wild extrapolation. Okay, there were a lot of applicants for that one particular job. Must have been a really nice one. Most of the applicants didn’t get in.

• How would AI screening change this?
• Did those failed applicants just give up and never apply for another job again afterward? You’re apparently one of them, are you now unemployed forever?

Firstly, 700 is nowhere near “tens of thousands.” Secondly, did those 700 applicants die in the streets or in prison? Or did they just go apply for some other job? People generally apply for a lot more jobs than they end up getting. And how is AI screening going to change the outcome? Would those 700 applicants get jobs there if they hadn’t been using AI?

Also, note that America is not the whole world. Most civilized western nations have outlawed slavery, so their prisons aren’t forced labor camps. And the jobless are not automatically imprisoned.

Really, this whole thread is just weird. I pointed out that voluntarily avoiding applying for jobs just means other people will take them, and we leapt instantly to some kind of cartoonish dystopia full of slavery and death.

If we’re at “tens of thousands of applicants per job” and “forced labor camps” we’re well beyond any remotely relevant scenario to what this article is about. Sure, hyperbole is a routine part of Internet arguments, but this feels like “I’m not fond of coffee” “Oh, so you want to kill everyone who has a caffeine addiction?” Sort of overreaction.

All I’m saying is that AI will likely be used as part of the hiring process in the future and people who absolutely refuse to engage with it will be taking themselves out of a significant portion of the job market.

AI is literally being used right now, it’s what this thread is about.

And the personal attack is bizarre. As I said, I’m not the one deciding whether AI works or not. I’m not deciding whether it’s being used. I have nothing to do with it and it has nothing to do with me.

Would you rather I not enjoy it?

Honestly, I don’t know what your point is. I’m not the one deciding whether AI works or not. The world is changing and we can either find some way to adapt to these changes or we can… what, yell at clouds about it?

If every job can be replaced by AI then we’re beyond the subject of this thread at that point. Won’t need recruitment at all when that’s the case.

Lots of people in this thread basically saying “I will voluntarily yield those job opportunities to people willing to use new technology.”

Thanks, I guess?

You may know IPv6 is ridiculously bigger, but you don’t know it.

There are enough IPv6 addresses that you could give 10^17 addresses to every square millimeter of Earth’s surface. Or 5×10^28 addresses for every living human being. On a more cosmic scale, you could issue 4×10^15 addresses to every star in the observable universe.

We’re not going to run out by giving them to lightbulbs.

Because none of the downsides listed in this article really matter for most projects. The fact that GitHub is owned by Microsoft doesn’t magically give them rights over the code that they wouldn’t have if it was hosted somewhere else.