6 ms·
I can't remember the last time I visited Wikipedia. Genuinely don't know why anyone would use it when you have perplexity, gemini, chatGPT search, etc. at your
by andreilys 2y ago
I can't remember the last time I visited Wikipedia.
Genuinely don't know why anyone would use it when you have perplexity, gemini, chatGPT search, etc. at your disposal.
- dheerajvs 2y ago> Genuinely don't know why anyone would use it when you have perplexity, gemini, chatGPT search, etc. at your disposal. And what did they get trained on in the first place?
- notyourwork 2y agoWhich is funny because if Wikipedia dies, who will continue providing updated training data to these models? It's a weird self-fulfilling prophecy that consolidates without financial replacement.
- fossislife 2y agoThe same sources Wikipedia gets its information from. You can not even contribute to Wikipedia without providing outside sources, I think, which are usually websites or books
- Azerty9999 2y ago>Genuinely don't know why anyone would use it when you have perplexity, gemini, chatGPT search, etc. at your disposal. LLMs hallucinate/confabulate. I use Wikipedia to check source info and to find additional information. Of course there are more reliable sources than Wikipedia, but it's useful, still.
- eviks 2y agoYou favorite tool can easily answer that question
- Yizahi 2y agoI sometimes use neural nets for obscure compound questions (with a so so efficiency), but I can't imagine using NN in place of Wikipedia. I go to Wikipedia to find factual information (by factual I don't mean guaranteed, I mean hard data - years, names, models etc.). How can anyone rely on a random text generator to get factual data?