undefined | Better HN

0 pointsTheHappyOddish2y ago0 comments

It's not that different to Wikipdia. Trust, but verify. It's usually correct, but regardless it's a useful starting point for a topic.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

palata2y ago· 2 in thread

Wikipedia shows sources, does not hallucinate, and shows the same content to all the users (meaning that if there is a mistake, someone else can actually report it).

That is very different to me.

TheHappyOddishOP2y ago

Those are accurate details, but if you zoom out they're still contextually very similar - a swathe of text on a subject written by someone (or something) you have no veritable trust in but is usually fairly accurate.

You should independently fact check either source. Wikipedia is slightly easier, but after you have a base subject matter understanding you should have the terminology to validate anyway.

I suspect you just don't like it, which is perfectly fine.

palata2y ago

> Those are accurate details, but if you zoom out they're still contextually very similar

I cannot go against that. To me, the points I listed make them fundamentally different.

> I suspect you just don't like it, which is perfectly fine.

Because you don't understand why I see it as a problem that people don't make the difference between Wikipedia and ChatGPT does not necessarily mean that I am just making up arguments because I don't like it...

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse