I have no idea what sort of AI you've used that could do any of this stuff you've listed. A program that doesn't reason won't expose logical fallacies with any rigour or refine anyone's ideas. It will link to credible research that you could already find on Google but will also add some hallucinations to the summary. And so on, it's completely divorced from how the stuff as it is currently works.
Someone with a brilliant comic concept but no drawing ability? AI can help build a framework to bring it to life.
That's a misguided view of how art is created. Supposed "brilliant ideas" are dime a dozen, it takes brilliant writers and artists to make them real. Someone with no understanding of how good art works just having an image generator produce the images will result in a boring comic no matter the initial concept. If you are not competent in a visual medium, then don't make it visual, write a story or an essay.
Besides, most of the popular and widely shared webcomics out there are visually extremely simple or just bad (look at SMBC or xkcd or - for a right-wing example - Stonetoss).
For now I see no particular benefits that the right-wing has obtained by using AI either. They either make it feed back into their delusions, or they whine about the evil leftists censoring the models (by e.g. blocking its usage of slurs).
But 90% of "reasoning humans" would answer just the same. Your questions are based on some non-trivial knowledge of physics, chemistry and medicine that most people do not possess.
As I said in an another comment, I find that traditional encyclopedias fare better than Wikipedia in this respect. Wikipedians can muddle even comparatively simple topics, e.g. linguistic purism is described like this:
Linguistic purism or linguistic protectionism is a concept with two common meanings: one with respect to foreign languages and the other with respect to the internal variants of a language (dialects). The first meaning is the historical trend of the users of a language desiring to conserve intact the language's lexical structure of word families, in opposition to foreign influence which are considered 'impure'. The second meaning is the prescriptive[1] practice of determining and recognizing one linguistic variety (dialect) as being purer or of intrinsically higher quality than other related varieties.
This is so hopelessly awkward, confusing and inconsistent. (I hope I'll get around to fixing it, btw.) Compare it with how the linguist RL Trask defines it in his Language and Linguistics: The Key Concepts:
[Purism] The belief that words (and other linguistic features) of foreign origin are a kind of contamination sullying the purity of a language.
Bam! No LLMs were needed for this definition.
So here's my explanation for this problem: Wikipedians, specialist or non-specialist, like to collect and pile up a lot of cool info they've found in literature and online. When you have several such people working simultaneously, you easily end up with chaotic texts with no head or tails, which can always be expanded further and further with new stuff you've found because it's just a webpage with no technical limits. When scholars write traditional encyclopedic texts, the limited space and singular viewpoint force them to write something much more coherent and readable.
Yeah, the catastrophic comments do take it too far... WMF has already announced they're putting it on hold, so at the very least there's a lot of discussion with the editors and additional work that will have to happen before this launches - if it ever launches.
RAG is very good and accurate these days that doesn’t invent stuff.
In the OP I linked a comment showing how the summary presented in the showcase video is not actually very accurate and it definitely does invent some elements that are not present in the article that is being summarised.
And in general the "accessibility" that primarily seems to work by expressing things in imprecise, unscientific or emotionally charged terms could well be more harmful than less immediately accessible but accurate and unambiguous content. You appeal to Wikipedia being "a project that is all about sharing information with people to whom information is least accessible", but I don't think this ever was that much of a goal - otherwise the editors would have always worked harder on keeping the articles easily accessible and comprehensible to laymen (in fact I'd say traditional encyclopedias are typically superior to Wikipedia in this regard).
and would save millions of editor hours and allow more accuracy and complexity in the articles themselves.
Sorry but you're making things up here, not even the developers of the summaries are promising such massive consequences. The summaries weren't meant to replace any of the usual editing work, they weren't meant to replace the normal introductory paragraphs or anything else. How would they save these supposed "millions of editor hours" then? In fact, they themselves would have to be managed by the editors as well, so all I see is a bit of additional work.
You openly declaring yourself as "pro-AI" (which I didn't have to ask for because I remember your numerous previous comments) and opposing yourself to "anti-AI" people really just shows that the discussion is on wrong tracks. The point of being pro or against AI should be to have whatever positive consequences for the stuff people are doing, in this case Wikipedia. The priority should be to be pro-Wikipedia, and then work out how AI relates to that, rather than going the other way around.
And true to your self-description you're only defending AI as a concept, by default, without addressing the actual complaints or elaborating why it would be so desirable, but by accusing others of being anti-AI, as if that's meaningful critique by itself.
Since you claim to be an editor, you could also join the discussion on Village Pump directly and provide your view there. But I believe we've already had a very similar discussion about Wikipedia some time ago, and I think you said you're not actually active there anymore.
I posted that first reply before the comment had any downvotes at all, and in my first response to you it is even now certainly clear who I'm talking about.
You seem to be more interested in wringing out arguments to defend AI tools than in how to make Wikipedia function better (adding low-quality summaries and shrugging at the negative reactions because the editors don't "really" have to fix any of them is not how WP will be improved). That the editors aren't irrelevant fools in their tiny bubble is something WMF apparently agrees with, because they've just announced they're pausing the A/B testing of the AI summaries they planned.
But it's quite obvious that they were what I was talking about, and you were responding to me. Instead of responding to my actual comment, you deceptively shifted the topic in order to trivialise the situation.
The target of these AI summaries are not Wikipedia editors
Except that the editors will very likely have to work to manage those summaries (rate, correct or delete them), so they definitely will be affected by them. And in general it's completely unacceptable to suggest that the people who have created 99% of the content on Wikipedia should have less of a say on how the website functions than a handful of bureaucrats who ran a survey.
If Wikipedia editors don’t like it there’ll likely be an option to disable it.
Disabling would necessarily mean disabling it wiki-wide, not just for individual editors, in which case the opinions of the editors' "bubble" will be quite relevant.
Have you read my OP or did you just use an AI-generated summary? I copy-pasted several comments from Wikipedia editors and linked a page with dozens, if not a hundred other comments by them, and they're overwhelmingly negative.
The problem is that the bubble here are the editors who actually create the site and keep it running, and their "opposition" is the bubble of WMF staff.
Looks like the vast majority of people disagree D: I do agree that WP should consider ways to make certain articles more approachable to laymen, but this doesn't seem to be the right approach.
with a LLM I can be open without any baggage involved, I can be more raw and honest than I would or could be with any human because the information never leaves my computer.
Recently went down the rabbit hole (ok, I'm lying, I just read a Wikipedia article and one scientific study), and found out that the venomousness of the platypus has crazy implications for mammal evolution:
In spite of the rarity of venom among extant mammals, venom may be an ancestral feature among mammals, as venomous spurs akin to those of the modern platypus are found in most non-therian Mammaliaformes groups.
One of my family members participated in one such project, she wrote scenarios for a number of video lectures for schoolkids. It was bad, it was really fucking bad, and I could write an essay explaining why it was so, there's a wide variety of reasons ranging across the technical, legal, administrative, etc. Just one example: you're making a lecture about art? Yeah, go contact the copyright holders if they would be merciful enough to allow us to use the artwork in the video.
And your idea that the default approach should be that kids have no interaction with their teachers is honestly horrifying.
They already did something similar back in the day. I remember watching a music video some ~10 years ago where they placed an ad like five seconds before the end of the song, right at the musical climax, ruining the mood with surgical precision. I was absolutely infuriated and went off to Google wondering if there's a way to block ads. And the rest is history.
I have no idea what sort of AI you've used that could do any of this stuff you've listed. A program that doesn't reason won't expose logical fallacies with any rigour or refine anyone's ideas. It will link to credible research that you could already find on Google but will also add some hallucinations to the summary. And so on, it's completely divorced from how the stuff as it is currently works.
That's a misguided view of how art is created. Supposed "brilliant ideas" are dime a dozen, it takes brilliant writers and artists to make them real. Someone with no understanding of how good art works just having an image generator produce the images will result in a boring comic no matter the initial concept. If you are not competent in a visual medium, then don't make it visual, write a story or an essay.
Besides, most of the popular and widely shared webcomics out there are visually extremely simple or just bad (look at SMBC or xkcd or - for a right-wing example - Stonetoss).
For now I see no particular benefits that the right-wing has obtained by using AI either. They either make it feed back into their delusions, or they whine about the evil leftists censoring the models (by e.g. blocking its usage of slurs).