Never worry about commie crap like public citations getting in the way of misinformation rhetoric again! (Because the LLM trained on fuckin twitter made it up lmao)

On the flipside for an actually cool non-cucked integration of LLMs with wikipedia check out this post on the localllama where the person shares their project of using a local private llm to search through a local kiwix server instance of wikipedia. https://piefed.social/post/1333130

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    So you’re doing the classic thing of putting the burden of responsibility for your ridiculous claim on to somebody else to disprove. A classic sign of somebody not arguing in good faith.

    How can I prove that Wikipedia only lists facts since any evidence that I present, you will immediately disregard as untrue because of your preconceived bias.

    I want you to link to any article, on any subject matter on Wikipedia (in English so we can actually read it, I know that trick) that proves your claim of bias. I genuinely don’t believe you will be able to because if you could provide this evidence, you would have linked to it in your original comment.

    Your holy scripture arguement doesn’t work because Wikipedia isn’t a fixed source of stated reality, it’s a constantly changing constantly updated website. We know the Bible isn’t objective reality because we’ve had it for a very long time and have been able to test it against known historical accounts, and they don’t match up. Wikipedia on the other hand is updated millions of times a day. Even if an article had some bias, by the end of the first day that bias would have been corrected by someone who didn’t like the bias. But you’re stating that there is a deep rooted institutional bias. I’d like you to indicate it please.