Archive for the ‘Wikipedia’ Category

ChatGPT and GPT4: a fresh starting point for society or Wikipedia 2.0? – Bizcommunity.com

The annals of the internet are replete with tales of warning, ranging from apocalyptic scenarios that never materialised - such as the Y2K bug - to groundbreaking technological advancements that were once widely celebrated, but have now become insignificant elements in the fabric of the world's digital landscape.

Joe Baguley, VP and CTO, VMware EMEA | image supplied

The nature of technology and its cycle of self-perpetuating betterment means that there will always be the next big thing. In this regard, step forward ChatGPT and its subsequent updates such as GPT4.

Since the tail end of 2022, ChatGPT has been that thing. The white knight to solve the ills of modern society. Depending on which news source you read, it will improve; how we study, write, research, code, work, create and evolve in the workplace. There is more, of course, because the potential use cases are endless, but there are also grounds to sound the klaxon of caution.

For a start, weve been here before. People of a certain age will recall the fanfare to which Wikipedia arrived. That too was going to revolutionise how we learn and research. That too was going to change the world. And did it? Im afraid not quite.

What happened is what is almost certain to happen to ChatGPT and the innovations that follow after it. That it evolved to become a tool, albeit an incredibly useful one. A tool in the box that helps our day-to-day lives alongside the other incredible tools that have been developed in recent years, like Alexa or next-day delivery. On its own, will it change how we operate? Almost certainly. Will it change the world? Almost certainly not. Like Wikipedia, we will grow to learn its limits.

Perhaps the key question is, where and how far will it catapult society? The excitement around ChatGPT stems from what it is, not necessarily what it does. By consumerising an artificial intelligence (AI) product into something everyone can use it has opened our eyes to the realities of an AI-infused world.

The fact is, that this is happening already in sectors such as healthcare (for early detection, image scanning and analysis and predictive care to name a few examples) and manufacturing (for instance, to increase production capabilities and cut emissions) but those applications are limited only to a select few, hence the massive disparity in reaction.

The reality is, we are already in an AI-infused world of which ChatGPT is simply the next chapter and it wont be the last. It is, however, a very clear signpost as to where we go from here. The Genie is out of the bottle as far as the positive impacts AI can have but beyond the excitement and appetite to use it as a digital travelator to get to the next point more quickly, society needs to harness it appropriately.

This means starting at an education-level. Were already seeing reports of it being used in exams. In a recent test, it passed law exams in four courses at the University of Minnesota and another exam at University of Pennsylvanias Wharton School of Business, according to this story on CNN. Unsurprisingly, were also seeing tools being developed to detect and prevent its usage. This creates a developmental cat and mouse whereby students will want to use it both because they cant, and because they shouldnt.

But this sends out a wrong message and arguably fuels the fire of scepticism around AI. Knowing that theyre here to stay, we should accept ChatGPT and other AI tools into education and encourage people on how to best engage with them. Essentially, to use every tool in the box to get the job done better and quicker because this is the world of work they will walk into.

The same message applies to businesses. It is far too linear to suggest that these types of AI advances alone will kill job X or Y while that, in and of itself, isn't the end of the chain anyway. Just because ChatGPT can create job adverts, brand copy or legal letters does not mean businesses ought to dismiss their HR, marketing and legal teams. Far from it.

These teams are more vital than ever because their years of experience, diverse backgrounds, soft human skills and unique personalities are not only what is required to get a job done today, theyre the foundation of society tomorrow.

The cleverest businesses and the ones who will come out on top in the end will be the ones who get to grips with these types of innovation. To learn them, incorporate them into day-to-day operations and evolve the skills of their teams accordingly and in lockstep with any new development. Microsofts new 365 Copilot is just another example of such tech rapidly being integrated into existing business tools.

The leaders will be the companies that embrace AI to do something better than they are doing today without jettisoning the people and skills required to adapt to our ever-changing world.

Another way to look at it is that early machine code developers didnt disappear because we invented compilers - what in fact happened was that more and more people could access the power of computing as coding became progressively easier and easier with each generation; with generative AI such as GPT4 now generating code and creating websites from sketches it will just enable even more people to engage and create.

We will, of course, reach a point where enough is enough as far as AI is concerned. Perhaps in years to come well reach that moment and identify this period as the start of that journey, but it is a long way from now. What it will look like is an age-old question. A moral and societal issue far too deep to cover here, though Professor Stuart Russell did so expertly in his 2021 Reith Lectures.

All we have now is a new technology, no more, no less. ChatGPT is a computer system taking big steps forward in communication and generation, and that is an amazing advancement, but using this tool and combining it with other tools alongside the scientific method and human intelligence is where the real excitement is. In short order we are already discovering its flaws and limits.

Thinking critically about combinations and application is how and where we can realise the potential of AI to change lives for the better. Once again we should look at how technology augments humans and advances us all. In order to do that, we first have to understand limitations and that were always in the middle of history, never the end.

Link:
ChatGPT and GPT4: a fresh starting point for society or Wikipedia 2.0? - Bizcommunity.com

How to Change the Default Search Engine in the Most Popular … – MUO – MakeUseOf

Android browsers come with a specific search engine set as their default. Google Search is the most popular on most of these browsers. Its convenient for most people but what if you want to switch to a different search engine?

Changing your default search engine on any browser is easy. In this guide, well show you how to change your default search engine in the most popular Android browsers.

Chromes default search engine is Google Search which also happens to be the biggest search engine on the internet. However, there are many other search engines with fewer privacy concerns than Google.

To change your default search engine on Chrome, follow these steps:

Samsung Internet is the default browser on Galaxy smartphones. Its default search engine is Google Search. Heres how to change to a different search engine on Samsung Internet:

One of the best things about the Firefox browser on Android is that you can manually add the search engine of your choice if its absent from the available options. Heres how to switch your default search engine in Firefox:

Brave is a privacy-focused browser and uses its own proprietary search engine. The problem with most non-Google search engines is their unreliability when it comes to finding some types of information. If you want to switch back to Google Search or any other search engine on Brave, follow these steps:

Being from Microsoft, Edges default search engine is Bing. If you want to change to Google Search or a privacy-focused search engine like DuckDuckGo, heres how to go about it:

Opera comes with Google Search as its default search engine. You can change the default search engine to any of the following options that Opera offers if you want to: Yahoo, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Ecosia, Startpage, Amazon, eBay, or Wikipedia. Follow these steps:

Opera Mini is a lightweight mobile version of Opera Browser you can use if your device has any network or performance issues. Unfortunately, you must contend with Google and Wikipedia as the only available default search engine options in Opera Mini. To switch to Wikipedia, tap the search engine icon on the left of the URL bar and select Wikipedia.

To use any other search engine you can either enter it manually in the URL bar or add it to Opera Minis Speed Dial on the homepage.

To do this:

UC Browser comes with eight default search engine options. Switching from one to the other is easy:

Most browsers on Android will let you switch your default search engine but with limited options. Firefox would be the best in this department because it lets you enter your own custom search engine in case you miss it from the provided options. Samsung Internet has the most default search engine options.

Some specialist browsers like the popular privacy-focused DuckDuckGo will restrict you to one search engine. In this case, you can only use DuckDuckGos proprietary search engine if its your main browser.

Read the original:
How to Change the Default Search Engine in the Most Popular ... - MUO - MakeUseOf

Wikipedia – Wiktionary

Lost? Here is a link to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.The logo of WikipediaEnglishAlternative formsEtymology

Blend of wiki + encyclopedia, coined by Larry Sanger in 2001.

Wikipedia (plural Wikipedias)

Shopping online for deals on some writable media / I edit Wikipedia

Civility translated as savoir-vivre in the French version is one of the five "pillars" of Wikipedia.

To see how ghastly things have turned, look at the pages of the highly popular Wikipedia. Its free accessibility has made it a very useful and popular Internet resource. Then due to reports by Nature in 2005 of Wikipedias higher accuracy than online offerings of the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Wikipedia has been gaining in respect as a legitimate online reference source. []

Sirius is 8.6 light years away / Arcturus is 37 / The past is the past and it's here to stay / Wikipedia is Heaven / When you don't want to remember no more / On the far side of the morning

[] we could be on the cusp of a genuine technological revolution where systems like GPT-3 replace search engines or Wikipedia as our default resource for discovering information.

online encyclopedia

Wikipedia (plural Wikipedias)

There are over five million articles on the English Wikipedia.

His new project is to create a Wikipedia for UFO sightings from all around the world.

Likewise, it is much more important to build a complete set of libraries for all aspects of computing, a Wikipedia of free code, than to worry that further language innovation is the gating factor towards any future progress in software.

The library will function something like a Wikipedia of drug discovery, where scientists around the world can contribute to the database and even provide samples or screen drugs themselves, thereby saving millions of dollars on R&D.

And when interesting ideas arose, such as creating a Wikipedia of top-secret content for the intelligence community, he provided cover for those ideas to develop.

Her mind was a Wikipedia of useless information.

We had no illusions of providing a 360 coverage of the sociology of religion, or of confusing a Handbook with a wikipedia.

And it is so entertaining when he shares his stories about the other great traders he knows. He is a Wikipedia of trading anecdotes.

While time had given Britney nothing but a befuddling choice for a (now ex-) husband, children, and headaches, my friend had emerged with a Wikipedia of online dating information.

Her brain was a Wikipedia of songs, and she could give anybody a run for the money with music trivia.

He learned a lot of things according to his Wikipedia / and demonstrates his ample intellect on social media.

We spent our days off huddled in blankets and fleeces on our awful bony couch, listening to the radio and writing in our notebooks or sending emails or doing research, which for me meant reading the Wikipedias of lesser-known serial killers []

source of abundant knowledge

Wikipedia (third-person singular simple present Wikipedias, present participle Wikipediaing, simple past and past participle Wikipediaed)

[] her mother was "homeschooling" her via the Internet (basically, Wikipediaing the Important Facts from the History of the World, and ordering appropriate-level math textbooks from Amazon) []

Borrowed from English Wikipedia.

Wikipedia (genitive Wikipedias)

Wikipediac (singular definite Wikipediaen, plural indefinite Wikipediaer)

Borrowed from English Wikipedia.

Wikipedia?

Borrowed from English Wikipedia.

Wikipediaf (genitive Wikipedias or Wikipedia, plural Wikipedias)

Borrowed from English Wikipedia.

Wikipedia

Unadapted borrowing from English Wikipedia, blend of Hawaiian wiki + English encyclopedia. By surface analysis, Hawaiian wiki (speedy) + -pedia (-pedia).

Wikipediaf

Wikipedia

Borrowed from English Wikipedia.

Wikipedia

This entry needs an inflection-table template.

Borrowed from English Wikipedia.

Wikipediaf

Borrowed from English Wikipedia.

Wikipediaf

Borrowed from English Wikipedia.

Wikipedian (genitive Wikipedias)

More:
Wikipedia - Wiktionary

Selfiee: Wikipedia Page of Akshay Kumar’s Film Vandalised; Movie’s Name Changed to ‘Tatti’ Before It Was – LatestLY

Selfiee: Wikipedia Page of Akshay Kumar's Film Vandalised; Movie's Name Changed to 'Tatti' Before It Was  LatestLY

Here is the original post:
Selfiee: Wikipedia Page of Akshay Kumar's Film Vandalised; Movie's Name Changed to 'Tatti' Before It Was - LatestLY

Wikipedia’s 20, but how credible is it? DW 01/14/2021

Wikipedia, which has been referred to as a world treasure,turns 20 on Friday.According to research conducted over the years including a scientific study published by the journal Naturein 2005 and a report commissioned bythe site's Wikimedia Foundation in 2012 Wikipedia's entries are comparable in quality to those in prestigious encyclopedias such as Britannica. However, it is difficult to measure the consistency of information that can be altered at any time.

Sometimes, the quality of entries is a question of word count because longer articles will generally contain more details. Length, though, varies by language. For example, a sentence in French might contain more words than one in Kiswahili, which attachessubjects, objects and tenses to verbs. Measuring according to the file size of an entry is also of limited use because some alphabets take up more virtual space, Martin Rulsch, who works for the German section of Wikimedia and has volunteered for the site in various capacities for over 15 years, told DW.

Rulsch said quality must be gauged byindividual indicators. He said a large number of contributors alone did not necessarily translate to quality content. An article that was initially "researched in detail" and factually sound would not always benefit from several changes and addenda. Moreover, it is not easy to rapidly call up the number of authors in every language version, he said. So, it is not easy to measure the quality of Wikipedia according to a formula.

Poor spelling and grammar can be signs that an entry is substandard, saidNenja Wolbers a project manager at Germany's Digital Opportunities Foundation, which promotes online inclusion to combat the societal digital divide. She said users should pay attention to whether an article is neutral or expresses an opinion, and whether it provides a broad overview and presents different perspectives.

Users should be on the lookout for contradictions and should always check the sources, Wolbers said: "This is essential if I want to know if information is valid." She said it was important that quotations be referenced and that users check the sources. "It makes sense to simply click on the links," she said. Wolbers uses Wikipedia to get a general overview of a subject, but "this doesn't mean that I have a final answer."

"Users have to remember that Wikipedia is a site used by many authors," she said, "and it is possible to modify things quickly."

Articles about the same topics are written and edited independently of each other by authors in different languages. They may emphasize different aspects of issues; there might even be very different information. For example, entries about Crimea, which Russia annexed from Ukraine in March 2014, differ depending on the language. DW's fact-check team analyzed the German, Russian and Ukrainian entries. The German version called Crimea a "Ukrainian peninsula," while the Russian did not mention its belonging to Ukraine, though it acknowledged a territorial dispute. The entries contained most of the same basic factual information about the region, but the entries differed on more recent events: The Ukrainian version has a section called "Annexation of Crimea," but the Russian refers to the "Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation." Most Russian entries on the topic fail to mention that the March 2014 referendum that led to Crimea's annexation was not considered legitimate by the government of Ukraine and many international institutions, which do not recognize the annexation either.

Rulsch cited the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, which flared up once again recently. "I've been seeing this conflict on Wikipedia for over 10 years," he said. "The issue is about definition whether it was genocide or not and who started it." Volunteers like him can work as mediators in such situations. "I don't think that there is truth and neutrality, but Wikipedia's goal is to get as close to these as possible and to strive towards them," he said. "If there is no neutral standpoint, then several standpoints can be presented."

Wolbers recommends that users use translation tools to read Wikipedia entries in other languages, as well as to seek other sources.

Several cases of politicians editing the entries about them have been reported. In Germany, the energy lobby has been accused of tweaking Wikipedia entries in order to "greenwash." Celebrities such as the US actor Lindsay Lohan have been declared dead. Wikipedia even has a list of fake entries in nine languages. A hoax article about a fictional extinct carnivore called a Mustelodon was online for 14 years and nine months at least according to Wikipedia. "The more obscure a topic is, the less likely people are to read it," Rulsch said, "and, the smaller the language version is, the greater the chance of manipulation."

There are mechanisms to prevent this, but Wikipedia often relies on users. "In theory, I could now spread conspiracy theories about antiquity, because not so many people would read them," Rulsch said. "But someone would notice if there were a link to another author, and then all my modifications would be examined carefully."

Rulsch is very familiar with non-German pages, as he is also a "steward," which gives him access to "small Wikipedias": language versions with less than 50,000 articles and fewer than 10 administrators, to whom he provides support. He said there was generally less inclination to manipulate entries in smaller versions because there were fewer readers.

To prevent manipulation, administrators can remove users who have violated the regulations. They can also protect articles so that only certain users can modify them. For example, the Bosnian-languageversion of the entry on the Srebrenica massacre of 1995 is protected, and the rights to edit various entries in English pertaining to sexual organs have been limited.

Over the years, Rulsch said, a system of quality control has been developed by language versions with large numbers of users. German entries have to be given a green light before being published, for example, and only registered users are allowed to create new articles in English. Bots are also used to sift out certain words, such as vulgar terms. There is also a transparency tool for users of all language versions, which gives a history of edits and deletions.

Sois Wikipedia a credible source? Many of the entries are well-documented, checked for quality and as opposed to reference books often completely up-to-date, but, 20 years after its creation, the online encyclopedia is not 100% reliable, because information can be manipulated, and sometimes almost undetectably.

Therefore, Wikipedia encourages users to be attentive and use their critical judgment.

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

This article has been adapted from German.

Excerpt from:
Wikipedia's 20, but how credible is it? DW 01/14/2021