HN

Comments (146)

• Menu

  grd_dev
  Almost all of these websites or platforms are doing these massive cleanup to remove ai content from them. Well appreciated.
• Menu

  CPUHall
  Its much appreciated. Reminded me of runescape (a game) wiki devs blogpost, its an interesting read: https://oldschool.runescape.wiki/w/User:Cook_Me_Plox/OSRS_Wi...
• Menu

  liveoneggs
  I attempted to fix some AI-generated content that I found on wikipedia recently - it had broken formatting, confusing + made-up text, and links on the wrong keywords; just generally very low quality edits.I made my edits and they were immediately reverted by wikipedia's own AI bot. I gave up.
• HelloUsername
  Related:"Low-background Steel: content without AI contamination (jgc.org)" 10.jun.2025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44239481 269 comments"Wikipedia: Database Download (wikipedia.org)" 27.apr.2025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43811732 99 comments"Low Background Steel (lowbackgroundsteel.ai)" 27.apr.2025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43814531 2 comments
• Menu

  Ericson2314
  I wonder if the AI companies would even pay for this, because it increases the quality of the training data.
• Menu

  delichon
  Effectively this is a project to help evolve AI to pass the Turing test for Wikipedia contributors.
• Menu

  dunham
  > It was around December 2023. A few other editors and I were chatting on Wikipedia’s Discord server, and we had all seen very strange articles with the same odd characteristics.I was afraid of that. I grabbed a 2024-04-20 copy as a backup, in case it turned to slop, but I suspected it might be tainted already.
• cdrnsf
  All of these companies helped themselves to resources like Wikipedia and then turn around and allow their tools to dump slop everywhere. It's appalling.
• davedx
  Ironically enough I just started an "Encylopedia of AI" project, and I've decided to generate all of the content with DeepSeek, with me being an editor/reviewer. I'm not really doing it for anyone except myself but I'm quite enjoying it so far. https://enkuklios.com/
• Menu

  gwbas1c
  About a decade ago, I read the history of AIDS on Wikipedia. It was a very informative (and satisfying) 20 minute read.Now it's pages and pages and pages of text: probably factual, but not a satisfying read. It feels like it's for a different audience, and it's not satisfying to read.Is it AI generated? I don't know for sure, but it feels like either someone (or something)'s missing the point of who Wikipedia's audience is; or that someone is following an agenda, (or that there's an edit war going on between dueling agendas and the facts are added to drown out the "AIDS is a consequence of bad morals" agenda.)
• rvba
  have they cleaned up the scottish wikipedia which is generated gibberish? (english translated to pseudo scottish by a teenager)https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/26/shock-an-aw-...
• Menu

  manlymuppet
  I mean this is good, because AI generated content is explicitly against the guidelines, however I can't help but think there is some utility to be had with AI and online encyclopedias, and we might be missing out on that.Of course I'd love for this experiment to be done outside of the main site, and only integrated when it's mature, stable, and proven to be actually useful, but other than that implementation concern, I feel this is something that needs to be explored.
• Menu

  berkes
  If we leave out environmental (energy, datacenters, coolant) and political arguments (copyright stealing, private data harvesting etc.) even if we agree that those are "bad".What then, is the problem of AI-Generated Content in Wikipedia?> Fake or misleading citations have become a major worry.Why is this not a standalone problem? Humans can fake and mislead in citations too, in fact, this is a major problem and has been so, for literally centuries in science.> Being a place that was, in theory, free from AI slop has become part of Wikipedia’s identity.Isn't this a separate issue in itself too? One of "quality". If AI generates poor quality content, than I would think the poor quality is the problem, not the producer of it.The article mentions several times how hard it is to detect AI content. If it is that hard, then obviously AI is doing a good job and producing content that matches that of humans. Why then insist on one type of producer?
• simianwords
  Wikipedia can gain a lot by doing a cleanup using AI instead. There’s a lot of incorrect information in Wikipedia that you can easily detect using AI with a prompt like “find something wrong in a few randomly selected Wikipedia articles”. Usually it does find something.If it’s that easy for me to correct it, it should be automated.
• Menu

  talon8635
  Good luck with that. I can’t see how it’s even possible, today, let alone in the future.
• RaStudies
  [dead]
• Salparvezml
  [flagged]
• dichiara19
  [dead]
• reedworth
  [flagged]
• marsven_422
  [dead]
• TechDebtDevin
  [dead]
• Menu

  oxyg3n
  [flagged]
• Menu

  bko
  [flagged]
• Menu

  clarionbell
  There will be a point in the future, possibly near future, when AI will be capable of reliably producing encyclopedic content, and we'll have tools to verify that the content produced passes reasonable standards.Today is not the day. Especially not regarding the verification.