Wikipedia's founder said he used ChatGPT in the review process for an article and thought it could be helpful. Editors replied to point out it was full of mistakes.
Adding AI assistance to any review process only ever worsens it, because instead of having to review one thing, now the reviewer has to review two things, one of which is defo hallucinated but it’s hard to justify the “why”, and the reviewer is also paid far less in exchange and has his entire worker class threatened.
I don’t see how this fits into the actual case being discussed here.
The situation currently is that a newbie editor whose article is deleted gets presented with a simple “your article was deleted” message. The proposition is to have an AI flesh that out with a “possibly for the following reasons:” Explanation. How is that worse?
All that stuff about paying less and threatening the worker class is irrelevant. This is Wikipedia, its editors and administrators are all unpaid volunteers.
Adding AI assistance to any review process only ever worsens it, because instead of having to review one thing, now the reviewer has to review two things, one of which is defo hallucinated but it’s hard to justify the “why”, and the reviewer is also paid far less in exchange and has his entire worker class threatened.
I don’t see how this fits into the actual case being discussed here.
The situation currently is that a newbie editor whose article is deleted gets presented with a simple “your article was deleted” message. The proposition is to have an AI flesh that out with a “possibly for the following reasons:” Explanation. How is that worse?
All that stuff about paying less and threatening the worker class is irrelevant. This is Wikipedia, its editors and administrators are all unpaid volunteers.