this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2025
70 points (72.4% liked)

Technology

77090 readers
3338 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
70
[Opinion] AI finds errors in 90% of Wikipedia's best articles (en.wikipedia.org)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by King@blackneon.net to c/technology@lemmy.world
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

For one month beginning on October 5, I ran an experiment: Every day, I asked ChatGPT 5 (more precisely, its "Extended Thinking" version) to find an error in "Today's featured article". In 28 of these 31 featured articles (90%), ChatGPT identified what I considered a valid error, often several. I have so far corrected 35 such errors.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But we don't know what the false positive rate is either? How many submissions were blocked that shouldn't have been, it seems like you don't have a way to even find that metric out unless somebody complained about it.

[โ€“] AcesFullOfKings@feddit.uk 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I can then check through anything it flags and manually moderate.

It isn't doing anything automatically; it isn't moderating for me. It's just flagging submissions for human review. "Hey, maybe have a look at this one". So if it falsely flags something it shouldn't, which is common, I simply ignore it. And as I said, that error rate is moderate, and although I haven't checked the numbers of the error rate, it's still successful enough to be quite useful.