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
[–] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 7 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

This headline is a bit misleading. The article also says that only 2/3 of the errors GPT found were verified errors (according to the author).

  • Overall, ChatGPT identified 56 supposed errors in these 31 featured articles.
  • I confirmed 38 of these (i.e. 68%) as valid errors in my assessment. Implemented corrections for 35 of these, and Agreed with 3 additional ones without yet implementing a correction myself. Disagreed with 13 of the alleged errors (23%).
  • I rated 4 as** Inconclusive** (7%), and one as  Not Applicable (in the sense that ChatGPT's observation appeared factually correct but would only have implied an error in case that part of the article was intended in a particular way, a possibility that the ChatGPT response had acknowledged explicitly).