this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
672 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

83295 readers
4581 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 402 points 1 week 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 251 points 1 week 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 99 points 1 week 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 11 points 1 week 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 15 points 1 week 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.

[–] Zagorath@quokk.au 9 points 1 week 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 6 points 1 week 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 (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] youcantreadthis@quokk.au 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

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 22 points 1 week ago

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

[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

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

;-)

[–] Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 week 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 86 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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

[–] kazerniel@lemmy.world 110 points 1 week ago (4 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 39 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SchwertImStein@lemmy.dbzer0.com 71 points 1 week 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 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 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 11 points 1 week 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)
[–] rodneylives@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago
[–] SunlessGameStudios@lemmy.world 44 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 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 (1 replies)
[–] yucandu@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Banned the people who openly admit it, anyway.

[–] aliser@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week 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.

[–] Mwa@thelemmy.club 15 points 1 week ago

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

[–] webp@mander.xyz 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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

[–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 30 points 1 week 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 11 points 1 week 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 8 points 1 week ago (5 children)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] davidgro@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I hoped the exceptions would be like "Quoted example text of LLM output, when it's clearly labeled and styled separately from the article text."

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] amateurcrastinator@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But how do they know it is ai written?

Wikipedia has banned AI-generated text,

Smiling Gus

... with two exceptions

Glaring Gus

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week 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)
load more comments
view more: next ›