Here's a case of a very experienced journalist getting caught by including made-up quotes that had been hallucinated by the AI he'd used to summarize research information: https://www.theguardian.com/te...

Vandermeersch added: “It is particularly painful that I made precisely the mistake I have repeatedly warned colleagues about: these language models are so good that they produce irresistible quotes you are tempted to use as an author. Of course, I should have verified them. The necessary ‘human oversight’, which I consistently advocate, fell short.”

When even experienced journalists fail to find AI hallucinations, you really can't expect unpaid volunteers to do better.

Yes. To be precise, banning is a form of regulation which the amendment forbids. Regulation OTHER than banning is not forbidden.

Unfortunately, even the best LLMs sometimes make up information ("hallucinate"), and the stuff they make up is deliberately crafted to appear exactly like real information. This is simply unacceptable for an encyclopedia.

If Wikipedia were written by paid professionals, you could plausibly put in place protocols to check and verify, and fire the ones who fail to check properly, but even paid professionals have been seen to let hallucinations through. As it is, as an encyclopedia that it is put together by volunteers, forbidding AI is pretty much a forced choice.

https://www.evidentlyai.com/bl...
  https://arize.com/llm-hallucin...
  https://thisweekinsciencenews....

But a question to ask is, was it actually a robot? Or was it just a remote teleoperated by a human?

The problem is that a sock puppet uses an actual human to operate it, while bots run with little or no need for human effort. So a human can turn out a handful of posts with sock puppets, while bots can be churn out thousands and thousands of posts, swamping any system with slop.

Let me verify: you are actually denying that the root of regulus is regus, genitive case of the Latin rex, "king"?

https://www.latin-is-simple.co...
  https://www.wordhippo.com/what...

For reference, that is known as the "Eddington limit" (on the rate of black hole accretion).

No.

Logically, it means that arms can be regulated, but cannot be banned.

Regulated, from the early 15th century, means according to rules, from the Latin root Regis, "of the king".

No, they only require calibration if you want the results to be accurate.

> "Our vehicles are giant paperweights right now through no fault of ours," one wrote on Reddit.

No fault? None at all? That seems... counter-intuitive.

I get it that the technology failed spectacularly, and that this is a serious problem for which people need to be held to account, but my car is working just fine.

After a few months of Windows 95, I switched to NT 3.5. Much better.

Unintended consequences are the most common consequences. Once you take that into account, the world makes a lot more sense. I totally get what you're talking about, though. I felt the same way when I first read "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom", and thought "whuffie" could be a really interesting idea if actually implemented. Eventually, I really I realized it's just as bad as stuff like Polymarket is turning out to be. Pure democracy has a way of always spiraling out of control.

What are you talking about? It does that kind of thing _now_.

I work for a Microsoft shop and use Copilot a lot. When I have a hard question, I use Claude Opus, otherwise ChatGPT is fine.