Adding a feature because ChatGPT incorrectly thinks it exists

You sound like all the naysayers when Wikipedia was new. Did you know anybody can go onto Wikipedia and edit a page to add a lie‽ How can you possibly trust what you read on there‽ Do you think Wikipedia should issue groveling apologies every time it happens?

Meanwhile, sensible people have concluded that, even though it isn’t perfect, Wikipedia is still very, very useful – despite the possibility of being misled occasionally.

OK, so how do I edit ChatGPT so it stops lying then?

You have ignored my point.

A technology can be extremely useful despite not being perfect. Failure cases can be taken into consideration rationally without turning it into a moral panic.

You have no ability to edit Wikipedia to stop it from lying. Somebody can come along and re-add the lie a millisecond later.

No, I didn't ignore your point. I invalidated it because you're comparing apples to oranges.

And yes, I do have the ability to edit Wikipedia. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. I can go on any page I want, right now, and make changes to the page. If someone readds a lie, then eventually we can hit consensus as other editors enter the discussion. Wikipedia's basis is formed by consensus and controlled by individuals like you and I.

ChatGPT is not. It is controlled by one company; I cannot go edit the weights of ChatGPT to prevent it from lying about my app or anything else I do. I can only petition them to change it and hope that either I have enough clout or have a legal basis to do so.

You’ve changed your position. This is what you originally said:

> how do I edit ChatGPT so it stops lying then?

This is what you have changed to:

> And yes, I do have the ability to edit Wikipedia.

You do not have the ability to edit Wikipedia so it stops lying, which is the relevant factor here.

No, that is not accurate. Wikipedia has a number of guardrails and such an edit war would be detected and investigated. Possibly the page protected and the offending IP or account banned.

Wikipedia edits are monitored and vandalism is taken seriously, especially on the more important pages.

> despite the possibility of being misled occasionally.

There is a chasm of difference between being misled occasionally (Wikipedia) and frequently (LLMs). I don’t think you understand how much effort goes on behind the scenes at Wikipedia. No, not everyone can edit every Wikipedia page willy-nilly. Pages for major political figures often can only be edited with an account. IPs like those of iCloud Private Relay are banned and can’t anonymously edit the most basic of pages.

Furthermore, Wikipedia was always honest about what it is from the start. They managed expectations, underpromised and overdelivered. The bozos releasing LLMs talk about them as if they created the embryo of god, and giving money to their religion will solve all your problems.

> I don’t think you understand how much effort goes on behind the scenes at Wikipedia.

I understand Wikipedia puts effort in, but it’s irrelevant. As a user, you can never be sure that what you are reading on Wikipedia is the truth. There are good reasons to assume that certain topics are more safe and certain topics are less safe, but there are no guarantees. The same is true of AI.

> Wikipedia was always honest about what it is from the start.

Every mainstream AI chatbot includes wording like “ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.”

> such an edit war would be detected and investigated.

As far as I understand Wikipedia’s rules, no it wouldn’t. Wikipedia considers it an edit war when there are three reverts in a 24 hour period. So if you remove a lie and somebody reverts that change, that is not considered an edit war. If they do it twice, it’s still not an edit war. If they do it three times, but over a greater time period than a single day, it’s still not an edit war. If somebody else re-adds the lie, it’s not an edit war either.

Regardless, it’s not important. The point I am making is that as a user, you cannot be sure that Wikipedia is not serving up lies to you.

20 years ago though, I think our teachers had the right idea when they said Wikipedia wasn't a reliable source and couldn't be counted. It's much better these days but I checked an old revision (the article on 9/11) the other day and barely anything was sourced, there were parts written in first person, lots of emotive language.