Of course schools are often prohibited to use an unvetted information collection site for routine tasks. That should be the rule, instead of only an exception. I don't see how this in any way does anything but support MY point.

There is no place what so ever in the world for anyone who gets spoon fed slop. They will grow up malformed, and correcting that misgrowth will be painful. Nobody should be subject to the gross violation of their mental understanding that slop inflicts.

In short, you're simply wrong. And Wikipedia not adopting the cancer of slop to infect its users with misunderstandings which will corrode people's understanding of the world further is not only commendable, but something which should be adopted by everyone eveyrwhere.

There are good uses for LLM's. Summarizing information is not one of them.

I never howled like that about Wikipedia. I never held to that view which you invoke. I know no-one who did. You're erecting a strawman. But everyone who knows anything about LLM's hold the view I hold on the slop.

AI summaries are not "the bogeyman". They are slop generated by statistical proximity of tokens. They are inherently incapable of being anything but slop. That is a fundamental part of the technology.

And the fact that they "in general" are "on target", while always coming off as cocksure, is exactly the problem; the always present minor and major errors in slop generation get very hard to notice because of this.

And that is even more important when you want a quick answer. That's when you don't have spare resources to validate. And that is when the risk for damage is the largest.

Slop generation is a cancer which has no place on Wikipedia.

In a different, and guaranteed to be incorrect, way. Always nice to know that what you're learning will mislead you, isn't it!

If you find inaccurate summaries useful, you don't need Wikipedia. You can just make up your own answer and save even more time instead of spending it on learning.

That interview uses incorrect language. What is prohibited is original research, not primary sources. A book publication about the event in question, for example, would be a primary source. The transcripts are not published anywhere, and are thus not a source at all. They're raw material which can be used to create a source.

And that is because Wikipedia is not a research platform. If you want to publish your research, you should do that on a platform suited for that. Then you can use that published research as a primary source and edit Wikipedia, and your edits will be accepted.

What that discusses is notability, not sources to use. Presence of secondary sources means something is notable. Their absence means it's not. If you actually read the guideline, it doesn't have anything to do with what sources to use for the article.

Even if the US had free healthcare, and full social protection in the form of welfare and food stamps, for every citizen, and provided free higher education for everyone, it wouldn't spend even half of what the economy generates, much less *more* than it generates.

How do I know? Nations which generate less money per capita do this, and it doesn't cost more than their economy generates.

There is no need to tax even remotely as high as you suggest to afford infrastructure, health care, education and social services. And it also wouldn't lead to "nobody working"; on the contrary, people who have financial security want to do things, and need money to do that, so they want to make more money.

You're seriously rhetorically asking "why does a car manufacturing plant need a parking lot to place the cars it produces on" and expects it to be some kind of "gotcha".

And that is the absolutely only argument you have; that you can't think far enough to comprehend the need for space to place produced vehicles on.

I've been disappointed by a lot of commenters in my day, but you take the cake.

Corporate America uses Windows because it provides tools for locking down what the users can do, and because nobody gets fired for buying Microsoft. Not because corporate America has some kind of superior comprehension of security or quality.

I used to use Windows 25 years ago. Today I want to get work done and run games and have something just work. That means Linux all the way. Nothing else has the stability and performance, and most of all, allows me to use all the skills I've amassed over half a century.

Employment in logistics gas skyrocketed since trucks and tractors became common.

History since the industrial revolution shows that when the rich hoard wealth, it takes long for common people to benefit from efficiency increases, that's correct, but that has nothing to do with the amount of people needed to perform work.

And now, as yoiur argument is lacking, you're running around with the goal posts, trying to limit the scope to one narrow sector of horse use, one which wasn't even in the original broken analogy.

Thanks for admitting your point was, and remains, vacuous.

Correlation is not causation. Trucks and tractors did not impose the tariffs.

What is clearly observable truth is that with increased capacity to automate things like code generation, like improvements in compilers, IDE's, source control and so on, the demand for code has exploded, and the need for human brain power with it. Currently there is no way for human brain power to even remotely satiate the demand for more code.

Using generative AI to enhance productivity will not reverse this trend. If anything, it will accelerate it.

Unless a massive breakthrough in how generative AI works is done soon, this won't change. Generative AI will not replace human brain power. It will augment it while increasing the demand for it.

The ones laying off staff are US companies. Not European companies. As a general observation, skilled workers in Europe not only have job security, but are being headhunted by companies desperate for more workforce.

Manual labor and such is a different matter, and the majority of unemployment.

Nobody's getting fired from AI, except in some edge cases like first line support where nobody wants to work anyway. Automation in general, in Europe, is done to increase quality and output. And AI is not great for that, yet.

The main drive for automation is not saving money on workers, but increase in quality, reduction of waste and increase in production rate. It's mainly used to increase output and reducing losses rather than removing workers. The exceptions are things like first line customer support and other really menial jobs, where worker turnover is high and the output is extremely low margin and not quality sensitive.

This analogy fails on so many levels.

Thus far, any increased productivity from genai gets absorbed by the need for much more product. It's not like transportation, where the growth in need is limited and increase in transport capability will reduce the number of workers needed to transport things (which incidentally also hasn't been the case; there are a hell of a lot more people working in logistics today than in 1894). In fields where genai is being used, the demand has always been vastly higher than production ability, and there is no end in sight of that being the case.

We can increase output of every programmer and writer in the world by magnitudes, and that wouldn't even remotely satiate the need for more code and more written material.

And of course, it turned out that with the switch to more efficient transportation, what happened wasn't the same amount of goods transported with lower wages, but a vast increase in demand for goods, so even more people got employed and got higher wages.

Sure, the horses were let go, but that didn't impact the number of people employed or the wages negatively. On the contrary.