AmbitiousProcess (they/them)

Two is many?

And no, if you think spellcheck and language translators are slop, then unfortunately for you, a sizeable chunk of all written content ever created on the internet has been “slop” since far before LLMs even existed.

Regardless, I think it’s clear at this point you don’t give a fuck and just want to be angry, so I’ll stop and hopefully you won’t burst a blood vessel or something.

Please calm down.

“the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited”

“[LLM generated] edits to existing pages may be reverted without review, and pages where the editor is the only significant contributor may be nominated for a special proposed deletion process”

Does that seem like condoning slop to you?

Again, there are only two highly limited exceptions: spellcheck (whaddaya know, the thing who’s entire purpose is to predict likely words is good at being a thesaurus and grammar checker.), and translation (you must be skilled in both used languages, re-check every source and its claims, and read through the entire article for hallucinations while crosschecking with the original document’s other language version)

This is why I stated earlier that you seem to just want something to be mad about. Wikipedia is just only allowing LLMs to be used for cases they already allowed with non-LLM tools prior, that LLMs are also more typically reliable in, while mandating extensive human review.

You are getting angry and calling me a dumbass because Wikipedia allows the narrow functions of something performing the exact same functions as spellcheck or Google Translate 💀

unlike you I don’t condone slop

Quote where I condoned slop. Oh you can’t? That’s so crazy, it’s almost as if I didn’t.

maybe don’t die on the hill trying to defend it in my proximity

Sending you links to the actual policies instead of just relying on your made up assertions of what the policies are is dying on a hill? You’re the one dying on a hill you made up lol

And btw my link was also a direct link to Wikimedia, the nonprofit who owns Wikipedia.

You linked to a blog post by Wikimedia that’s over a year old. I linked to current Wikipedia policies.

Which do you think is more reflective of the organization’s current stance:

• A single blog post written by two people over a year ago
• Multiple guideline and meta consensus documents cooperatively developed by hundreds of editors, and currently enacted as policy across all of Wikipedia.

(From the Meta-wiki page on the topic)

“Our use of AI will allow editors to focus more on what they want to accomplish, not how to technically achieve it.”

“we cannot significantly support editors with AI for both content generation and content integrity at the same time. We made a decision to first prioritize using AI to support editors to assure content integrity.”

“generative AI in particular offers a promising solution for automated mentoring and guidance of newcomers”

“we should prioritize using AI to support knowledge integrity and increase the moderator’s capacity to maintain Wikipedia’s quality”

(From the most current page regarding AI use policy on Wikipedia and the LLM Writing Guide)

“the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited”

This is categorically an outright refusal to allow LLMs as a method of simply generating content. The only exceptions are for language translation (with many caveats), and for minor grammar corrections.

i.e. the shit you could do with a tool like Google Translate or Grammarly/LanguageTool/Word Spellcheck/etc, just done via a different mechanism, with anything past that being outright prohibited.

Also, it is punished, via the same means any transgression on Wikipedia is. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Persistent_LLM_use and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors

Do you even edit Wikipedia? Have you had to rewrite or remove LLM content and put warnings on people’s talk page? Have you reviewed the live changes feed to repeatedly see LLM-generated content getting removed? Or do you just want something to complain about while ignoring what actually happens on Wikipedia because you don’t seem to even have read a single meta or guidelines page on the topic?

Exactly this. They are guaranteed to get scraped regardless. Ask any question of an AI model and the first ‘source’ it cites is almost always Wikipedia. (assuming it’s not like a super technical in-depth question)

Might as well save on server overhead costs and get paid while doing it instead of trying (and failing) to block every possible scraper.

People choosing to post slop edits on Wikipedia means Wikipedia itself is supportive of AI?

Besides, I’ve regularly seen AI generated content get labeled as LLM-generated (and marked for cleanup/removal), removed AI content myself, and seen editors revert obvious AI slop content within a minute of the edit being made. AI is absolutely not something Wikipedia or most of its editors support.

35 or over is clinically considered geriatric in women

“geriatric” was an old, now antiquated term for just “if you’re past this age, you’re at a higher risk of complications with pregnancy”. It’s not used anymore. (as the article you linked states)

“geriatric” is a loose term with no defined age range, but I can assure you 99.99% of people would not call you even remotely close to geriatric because you’re in your 30’s.

I’ve seen lots of doctors and had every hormone, vitamin, blood test etc under the sun and they’re all normal.

Then that should probably indicate to you that something else is the problem. For example, those tests don’t indicate if you’re getting enough physical activity, if you’re eating too many ‘processed’ ingredients known to cause complications in high quantities without directly affecting vitamin levels, if you have a sleep disorder, if you’re having too much caffeine, if you’re breathing in air pollutants, if you have any number of genetic disorders, if you have certain damage to your organs, etc.

Stimulants are good.

Talk to a psychiatrist. If they think it would be good for your situation, then it is probably good. Until you do that, you have no clue if it will help you or hurt you. It could improve your situation, or it could make you forget to eat, make your sleeping worse, give you worse brain fog, withdrawal symptoms, extreme anxiety, or even a heart attack.

Stimulants are controlled substances for a reason. Please, talk to a health professional qualified to issue prescriptions for stimulants, specifically about the possibility of stimulants for your particular issues. (i.e. don’t just ask for tests, suggest the option. Doctors are willing to consider options when presented with them by the patient saying they want it, especially since a big barrier to people improving their health is often unwillingness to participate in a given habit or schedule of meds)

Oh, and consider a sleep study. That can catch many things that won’t show up on things like blood tests, and is very, very, VERY relevant to your specific symptoms.

Many conditions are never identifiable through blood, nutrient, or physical analysis of your body via scans and tests, and are only identified through symptoms, trial and error with different medications and known coping techniques, identifying changes after altering behaviors, etc.

The symptoms you are having are not normal or to be expected, they are clearly very impactful to your life, and the fact more basic tests like blood/vitamin tests haven’t identified an obvious cause signals you could possibly have a major underlying condition that could potentially be extremely serious.

Please, talk to a psychiatrist if you want to see if alternative stimulants could help, and get a sleep study done to understand how your body handles it and provide actual insight to your doctors.

How often do you go on outings? When did the symptoms generally start? Was it around a time you started taking caffeine or taking more of it than before? Are you on other psychoactive medications that could affect your brain?

Regardless, if you’re taking such a large dose of caffeine even occasionally, it could drastically affect your adenosine receptors, and that’s only going to cause tiredness, speech slurring, brain fog, etc to continue EVERY day until you’ve been without caffeine long enough for them to return to a baseline.

Personally, I’d suggest slowly decreasing your caffeine intake. Most people say “just quit taking it” but that can lead to some really annoying crash and withdrawal symptoms, so I’d say slowly reduce by maybe ~50mg per dose, each week or so, until you’re around 100-200mg max on any given day. If it doesn’t work out, you can always go back to your current caffeine intake, but if it does work out, you’ve just saved yourself a big headache and potential medical problems.

I can promise you, this is not a normal bodily reaction to have at your age, and you’re already hitting the recommended safe human limit if you ever take 400mg. To be clear, I’m not here to judge you. Just like most other people here, I think we’re all just quite concerned for your health and safety.

One thousand percent this. I even find it hard to fall sleep with an estimated 25-50mg of caffeine left in my system sometimes, even if I still feel tired at the same time. 100mg left by that point would almost certainly cause sleep problems.

And not only that, they’ll consider its response more reliable if they can see it cited sources… which are almost always Wikipedia.