This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
TL;DW:
He wrote checksum verifier for ISBN and discovered AI generated content on Wikipedia with hallucinated sources. He used Claude to write the checksum verifier and the irony is not lost on him. He tracked down those who submitted the fake articles and determined many are doing so out of a misplaced desire to help, without an understanding of the limitations and pitfalls of using LLM gen content without verification.
WHY poison Wikipédia with AI? I don't get it, what satisfaction does a person get from adding text they didn't write to Wikipédia? It's not like you get a gold medal, or your neighbor sees you as a hero, or you get a discount at McDonald's, there's no glamour on being an editor, so why even bother if you're not going to write quality content out of passion?
Please leave Wikipédia alone, you don't have to shove your AI bullshit everywhere, please leave somewhere in this god forsaken internet alone. Why must AI bros touch everything.
It's possibly from people trying to help, but don't understand AI hallucinations.
For example a Wikipedia article might say, "John Smith spent a year Oxford University before moving to London.[Citation Needed]" So the article already contains information, but lacks proper citation.
Someone comes along and says, "Ah ha! AI can solve this and asks AI, 'Did John Smith spend a year at Oxford before moving to London, please provide citations.' and the AI returns, "Yes of course he did according to the book 'John Smith: Biography of a Man' ISBN 123456789"
So someone adds that as a citation and now Wikipedia has been improved.
Or... has it? The ISBN 123456789 is invalid. No book could possibly have that number. If the ISBN is invalid, then the book is also likely invalid, and the citation is also invalid.
So the satisfaction was someone who couldn't previously help Wikipedia, now thinking they can help Wikipedia. At face value that's a good thing, someone who wants to help Wikipedia. The problem is that they think they're helping, but they're actually harming.
I thought wikipedia mods are overly zealous with checking submissions by new users.
Seemingly not so. Kinda worrisome
The problem is that the volume of slop available completely overwhelms all efforts at quality control. Zealotry only goes so far at turning back the tsunami of shite.
I'd assume Wikipedia implemented a whitelist rule for trusted edits and new accounts edits are hold in limbo until they are confirmes entries, no?
If Wikipedia actually allows for live edits to the page without any further checks, it seems very naive or very stupid to me.
Almost all Wikipedia pages allow not only live edits but anonymous ones as well. It worked remarkably well until the hallucination machines arrived.
People like to help, they don't know that LLMs generate bullshit. This should answer the "why".
He talks about the reasons why people are doing this at 21:30 in the video.
He notes that LLM vendors have been training their models on Wikipedia content. But if the content contains incorrect information and citations, you get the sort of circular (incorrect) reference that leads to misinformation.
One irony, he says, is that LLM vendors are now willing to pay for training data unpolluted by the hallucinated output their own products generate.
Sort of related, I was fact checking some of the content on my own website that had been provided by someone who later turned out to be less than reliable.
There was one claim I was completely unable to find a source for and suspected it was an AI hallucination. Turned to chatgpt and tried to find a source with that and it provided nearly the exact same sentence and cited my website as the source thus completing the hallucination cycle.
I just deleted it all from my site and started over.
You could just verify all ISBNs are valid on each edit, which would have some value in finding typos, but not doing that leaves this honeypot that could be used to identify AI slop accounts. Clever. Though maybe they’re wise to it now.
He also points out that there are many ISBNs that are "wrong", but are actually correct in the real world. This is because publishers don't always understand about the checksum and just increment the ISBN when publishing a new book. In many library systems there is this checkbox next to the ISBN entry field where you can say something like "I understand this ISBN is wrong, but it is correct in the real world".
So just flagging wrong ISBNs would lead to a lot of false positives and would need specific structures to deal with that.
That's extremely frustrating. Like, it's literally your job to get that number correct..
People frustrate me
I think most of the contributors aren’t going to get wife to it, because they have no idea what they are doing is wrong.
*wise to it
A cylindrical human centipede is a really good analogy to how LLMs work.
People go to libraries asking for books that don't even exist and some think that the libraries are hiding them from them, but the ISBNs are just halucinations... 😅
Can someone tl;dw me? I'm curious as to how comment gets tied to isbn
Not watched yet, but I suspect AI edits are using hallucinated citations with ISBNs that don't even pass a checksum test. AI may improve on this if someone trains them about ISBNs better, but it's cool if this sort of test weeds some slop out for now.
Correct.
Can someone tl;dw me? I'm curious as to how comment gets tied to isbn
!commentmitosis@lemmy.dbzer0.com
