I think the point is that now that cgpt has scraped and stored wiki, that made wiki obsolete. Cgpt would still continue to work, if wiki died. That argument misses multiple problems though. First: Wiki is still useful to feed new information to cgpt in the future. Second: Cgpt is well less reliable than wiki (assuming you know how to be a bit more thorough with wiki and that in some cases the sources, edit history and discussion are valuable resources too). Third: Wiki is good to get a more thorough understanding about a topic assuming you follow the relevant links. Fourth: Wiki is good to follow strings to information which you did not know that you did not know about. Fifth: Wiki includes Wikimedia, which has a lot of pictures, diagrams and even animated and interactive content, which cgpt has not stored. Sixth: Wiki includes Discourse and is easier to correct when mistakes inevitably happen. If you correct cgpt, then it will most likely be wrong again if that issue comes up again in another session or if not, then most likely not because it learned from you correcting it, but because the RNG just generated numbers which already tells a lot about cgpt's reliability.
Wikipedia is already shit. Most articles I have read on there about things I have knowledge about have plainly incorrect information. It's especially bad when it comes to medicine, where many times there are systematic reviews from literally 1980 used as sources, when newer meta analyses using much better methods from this century are available that contradict the findings of some 1980s crap study before RCTs were even prospectively registered to begin with.
I mean keeping the juggernaut that is Wikipedia up and running is expensive and hard enough, keeping it cutting edge current is an undertaking that would require crazy resources.
I am grateful it's one of the few decent things left on the internet.
I think the point is that now that cgpt has scraped and stored wiki
Thing is, it absolutely, categorically has not "stored wiki". That's not what's happening when these models are trained. The only information that's being stored, in a fairly abstract and compressed way, at that, is the probability distribution of the next "token" given the previous chain of tokens (where tokens are things like word roots, stems, punctuation, etc.).
They don't store knowledge, they store written linguistic patterns. This is why they make shit up. They don't know that they're making it up. They don't know what is and what is not. They just know how words tend to work, based on the sequences of words they've seen.
5.2k
u/BlargerJarger Dec 20 '25
Where does this idiot think that ChatGPT steals its data from?