General Discussion

Bernardo de La Paz

(55,932 posts)

27. Okay you may have something there, but it also points out the revision process restores a lot of it

Sun May 11, 2025, 11:10 AM

May 11

There is an unfortunate naming involved, I think, since "Energy Psychology" overlaps a huge area of nonsensical popular beliefs in auras, "vibrations", and supernatural energy "flows" and exchanges.

Wikipedia has a very well developed review process and "Talk" process to sort this kind of thing out. It is natural for statements in articles about "in vogue" topics to become contested and edited. All edits are visible, all edits are debatable. Have you edited there, corrected a contribution? I've made thousands of edits there, though not in recent years. Some have been contested, a few reversed in reasonable ways even if I disagreed with a couple of those.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

FakeNoose Emrys

66 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Remember When Wikipedia Was Considered Suspect? [View all] MineralMan May 11 OP

What happens when AI starts using itself as its source material? Ocelot II May 11 #1

Yes, indeed. MineralMan May 11 #5

What could happen is what's called "model collapse" - which there have been warnings about for years: highplainsdem May 11 #17

Over multiple iterations the errors get larger and the facts become overwhelmed. erronis May 11 #24

Wikipedia still is suspect. Nothing has really changed over the years. n/t valleyrogue May 11 #2

It's been years since I found a suspect source. . . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 11 #10

Wikipedia BeerBarrelPolka May 11 #13

Point something out. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 11 #14

How about this? TheRickles May 11 #22

Okay you may have something there, but it also points out the revision process restores a lot of it Bernardo de La Paz May 11 #27

I still occasionally find circular Wikipedia source citations muriel_volestrangler May 11 #37

Can happen. Complex subject matter is difficult to master and difficult to untangle. . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 11 #42

The professional organization of practitioners of this therapy gave up trying to influence Wikipedia. TheRickles May 11 #39

Such as? BeerBarrelPolka May 11 #63

Every spoken or written word is suspect. That's human nature. hunter May 11 #19

That's my position also. The "Talk" and revision pages are valuable in their own right. erronis May 11 #25

It is still "suspect." It's just that, like you say, you can generally check their sources...nt Wounded Bear May 11 #3

I do occasionally. It's been years since I found a suspect source. . . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz May 11 #11

Ai reformats work done by others samsingh May 11 #4

One day per week Turbineguy May 11 #6

IMO, AI is an amazing innovation anciano May 11 #7

Current AI is Generative AI, not true AI. It doesn't reason, it makes stuff that looks reasonable. Bernardo de La Paz May 11 #8

I call it fAI for fakeAI. Calling it AI is such a joke. CrispyQ May 11 #9

You are correct, of course. MineralMan May 11 #12

Define sentience Bernardo de La Paz May 11 #16

This is similar to what has been done to bridge the "Uncanny Valley" in visuals. erronis May 11 #28

Well, I consider artificial intelligence to be equivalent to MineralMan May 11 #31

Okay, a bit of a start to definition Bernardo de La Paz May 11 #36

OK. Definitions can be difficult when the subject is abstract. MineralMan May 11 #48

Good story and kudos to you. But you draw the wrong lesson and there are counters Bernardo de La Paz May 11 #51

Oh, I'm not saying that what they're calling AI will not be a useful tool. MineralMan May 11 #52

I think you may have deep seated mystical beliefs preventing you from recognizing all its forms Bernardo de La Paz May 11 #56

Not mystical at all. MineralMan May 11 #61

I'm open to the possibility that we've created an environment where AI could come about, CrispyQ May 11 #21

I agree. What's this? Highlight Look Up Wikipedia underpants May 11 #15

"starting point to other references" is exactly how it should be used RandomNumbers May 11 #30

Steve Pruitt has a lot of time on his hands. underpants May 11 #18

"AI" is not just another Silicon Valley gold rush Ponzi-oid investment bubble... paulkienitz May 11 #20

If they have so much confidence in it, the first task we should assign AI is climate change. CrispyQ May 11 #23

The #1 fix to climate change* is population reduction RandomNumbers May 11 #34

That's the #1 overly simplistic fix, not the #1 realistic fix Bernardo de La Paz May 11 #38

"WEF and "globohomo" ??? RandomNumbers May 11 #45

WEF is World Economic Foundation. "Globohomo" is the nutty concept that globalists and homosexuals are aligned Bernardo de La Paz May 11 #53

Ah, thank you. As usual, a "right wing talking point" is idiotic RandomNumbers May 11 #58

Post removed Post removed May 11 #55

Your exact words: RandomNumbers May 11 #60

Contraceptive and abortion rights were never "active reduction". Exercising them is active prevention, not reduction Bernardo de La Paz May 11 #64

Oh yes, the 8 billion pound elephant in the room. CrispyQ May 11 #44

Thank you. I blame lack of science education RandomNumbers May 11 #49

"The thing is, we might still be able to turn things around relatively humanely..." CrispyQ May 11 #65

Totally agree. RandomNumbers May 11 #66

The potential is enormous, so is the danger. Joinfortmill May 11 #26

I was recently going through the history of the moniss May 11 #29

First off, AI is a tool... Much like a calculator JCMach1 May 11 #32

Then, it is misnamed. MineralMan May 11 #33

thanks for that explanation of your use of these tools. Real life applications are helpful. erronis May 11 #35

The free to use baked in stuff is largely trash JCMach1 May 11 #40

Ed Zitron and Cory Doctorow will agree. erronis May 11 #46

In both your examples you are manipulating language... hunter May 11 #50

It's problematic when legit news media cites AI written content as a source IronLionZion May 11 #41

Wikipedia can be a useful starting point, but only that. And yes, generative AI slop is a growing problem there. Eugene May 11 #43

AI (GPT) IS A TOOL. Layzeebeaver May 11 #47

I agree The Bot's make up word salads. Historic NY May 11 #54

Yes, sometimes they do. MineralMan May 11 #57

I perfer Language Tool Historic NY May 11 #59

Yes, AI is a tool, and probably a useful one. MineralMan May 11 #62