DE
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

User:JuxtaposedJacob

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

$ This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that he has been paid by the University of Virginia, under the direction of User:Bluerasberry, for his contributions to Wikipedia. I have final say over where I edit, and my employer does not control at all what I write.


Go do this! ----> Citation Hunt Game <----

My former user account is User:Schoolbus777. Eventually, I will want to delete it as I made it in middle school; however, I would have no clue as to the password. This account has been renamed from "NANPLover47" because I did not put a great deal of thought into that username.

About me Resources
Opinions More about me
User:Tamzin on RGW
I guess my thing about RGW is like: If the wrong being righted is that Wikipedia is out of line with scholarly consensus, that's a great motivation for an editor to have. If the wrong is that scholarly consensus should change, that's a very bad motivation.
John Scalzi's "Whatever" blog, "A Review of Grokipedia, Using Myself as Test Subject," extolling the value of Wikipedia over such things as Grokipedia
[I]f you have to choose a "pedia" to trust, you might choose the one assembled by a bunch of pedantic nerds saying "well, ACTUALLY" to each other until the heat death of the universe, over the one assembled by an LLM controlled by an insecure Nazi salute-throwing billionaire who sprints to reprogram that LLM every time it shares a fact that makes that billionaire angry or sad, or doesn't fit into his Playskool Machiavellian ambitions and plans. In this particular case, a thousand pedantic nerds is much better than a single rich one.
User:S Marshall closing AI GA discussion; reflecting how much of the community hates AI
The more LLM-related RFCs I see, the clearer it becomes to me that a major faction in the en.wiki community loathes and detests LLM-generated writing and thinks it's rude and wasteful to ask human editors to spend their limited volunteer time reading and checking it. And I'm coming to think that, of the editors who respond to AI-related RfCs, those who're in this faction increasingly outnumber those who aren't. A lot of this is about reversibility. Wikipedia only works because it's easy to undo things. For example, it's easier to remove vandalism than to generate it. LLMs change this equation, making it easy for people who don't share our thoughts and values to generate prodigious quantities of superficially plausible text with very little effort. Making rules against LLM use is a bit like King Canute ordering the tide not to come in. If this is how we want LLM use to go on en.wiki, then I expect we will come to need bots that revert edits with AI stigmata as promptly and aggressively as Cluebot reverts vandalism.
Wikipedia is not censored.
inclThis user is an inclusionist.
NinerThis user thinks DS9 is the best Star Trek series. Ever.
Category Articles
Work for the future (needs expansion unless otherwise noted):
Accomplishments:
Committed identity: 141522e12a318788ad1f83cbf326343341f8119319e90675578a273f7fb5c54ac8c3f8be0e64873370db63e62c4983af6683aa7380f8fce97c02510ee1a4f6da is an SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.