The title doesn't match the facts in the announcement.

Only signature of the developer was leaked which could have lead to unsafe releases, but the point is moot as the developer is changing the signature key moving forward.

The first edit was undoing a vandalism that persisted for 5 years. Someone changed the number of floors a building had from 67, to 70.

A friendly reminder to only use Wikipedia as a summary/reference aggregate for serious research.

This is a cool tool for checking these sorts of things, run everything through the LLM to flag errors and go after them like a wack-a-mole game instead of a hidden object game.

No surprise.

Wikipedia ain't the bastion of facts that lemmites make them out to be.

It's a mess of personal fiefdoms run by people with way too much time on their hands and an ego to match.

Finding inconsistencies is not so hard. Pointing them out might be a -little- useful. But resolving them based on trustworthy sources can be a -lot- harder. Most science papers require privileged access. Many news stories may have been grounded in old, mistaken histories ... if not on outright guesses, distortions or even lies. (The older the history, the worse.)

And, since LLMs are usually incapable of citing sources for their own (often batshit) claims any -- where will 'the right answers' come from? I've seen LLMs, when questioned again, apologize that their previous answers were wrong.

The problem is a lot of this is almost impossible to actually verify. After all if an article says a skyscraper has 70 stories even people working in the building may not be able to necessarily verify that.

I have worked in a building where the elevator only went to every other floor, and I must have been in that building for at least 3 months before I noticed because the ground floor obviously had access and the floor I worked on just happened to do have an elevator so it never occurred to me that there may be other floors not listed.

For something the size of a 63 (or whatever it actually was) story building it's not really visually apparent from the outside either, you'd really have to put in the effort to count the windows. Plus often times the facade looks like more stories so even counting the windows doesn't necessarily give you an accurate answer not that anyone would necessarily have the inclination to do so. So yeah, I'm not surprised that errors like that exist.

More to the point the bigger issue is can the AI actually prove that it is correct. In the article there was contradictory information in official sources so how does the AI know which one was the right one? Could somebody be employed to go check? Presumably even the building management don't know the article is incorrect otherwise they would have been inclined to fix it.

Congrats. You just burned down 4 trees in the rainforest for every article you had an LLM analyze.

LLMs can be incredibly useful, but everybody forgets how much of an environmental nightmare this shit is.

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).