Now it’s updated, you’re human again :)

Hmm, you’re still marked as a bot on my end. Maybe it takes a while to update outside of your native instance.

My impression is that for ordinary non-power users it was supported from the start (i.e. the commonplace image viewers and editors could open it - at least I personally had no issues), it just felt annoying at first because it seemed forced upon the user.

Unsurprisingly, it’s crap.

Stealing, as in replacing/faking who the author was?

Lemmy itself is a good example of this. Most of the userbase heavily disagrees with the main developers’ political opinions, yet the software works well for everyone.

He also gave the example of a German Wiki community member who wrote a program to verify the ISBN numbers of books cited, and was able to trace notable mistakes to one person. That person ultimately confessed they had used ChatGPT to find citations for text references and the LLM “just very happily makes up books for you,” Wales said.

Well this won’t be a problem with Grokipedia, because it only uses sources that are available online as pure text (I’m pretty sure not even PDFs are used by it).

Wales thinks the public and the media often give Wikipedia too much credit. In its early days, he says, the site was never as bad as the jokes made about it. But now, he says, “We are not as good as they think we are. Of course, we are a lot better than we used to be, but there is still so much work to do.”

Amen, it’s nice to see the level-headedness.

You’re proving the point, though. People’s ability to write by hand has indeed deteriorated. Literacy has indeed reduced the need for and intensity of memorisation - and having stuff memorised is useful. What skill will AI cause to atrophy? Is that skill merely like handwriting, or something more?

As a Wikipedia editor I can comfirm - we regularly say that napalm sticking to objects in water is POV. I do it at least twice a week. I’ll try making a bot to do it automatically so I’ll have more time for holocaust denial.

You can check old versions of any article by clicking ‘history’. And yeah, the standards used to be pretty low.

The problem might be that Google will argue this isn’t a downgrade at all, but an upgrade (for “security” reasons). I don’t want to be a pessimist, but the tech illiterate judges could eat that up.

This is just avoiding the issue of having a short attention span.

I used to be easily distracted during online lectures yet had little difficulty following live lectures. It’s a fundamentally different experience, for whatever reason.

Also, the attention span has to be trained. And training it by working without a distracting computer sounds like a good idea.

It’s been moved to the archive but is linked on top of the talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&oldid=1310806574#Including_the_video / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Charlie_Kirk/Archive_2#Including_the_video

Looks like they’ve decided against inclusion. It’s also unlikely the video meets “fair use” standards so they’d have to delete it anyway…

They had a whole edit war about whether it should be included and locked the article.

Kirk’s killer seems to have used some large calibre weapon which probably made it look so particularly brutal and bloody.

You wouldn’t, by any chance, provide examples of that censorship and how it can be traced to FBI/CIA?

Sure, but the duration of the ownership doesn’t matter a whole lot in this sort of situation. If you’ve missed the news about the selling when it happened, it’s relatively unlikely you’ll learn about it afterwards. I don’t periodically do a background check of all the devs and owners of my apps.

Reminds me of how after WW2 people stopped calling their kids Adolf or even changed their name Adolf into something else. I mean, I’m not saying Zuckerberg is literally Hitler or something, but it sure is funnily similar.

I’m on Facebook because many people I communicate or work with and pages and groups relevant to my interests are active there.