[markovs_gun]

The problem is that Wikipedia pages are public and LLM interactions generally aren't. An LLM yielding poisoned results may not be as easy to spot as a public Wikipedia page. Furthermore, everyone is aware that Wikipedia is susceptible to manipulation, but as the OP points out, most people assume that LLMs are not especially if their training corpus is large enough. Not knowing that intentional poisoning is not only possible but relatively easy, combined with poisoned results being harder to find in the first place makes it a lot less likely that poisoned results are noticed and responded to in a timely manner. Also consider that anyone can fix a malicious Wikipedia edit as soon as they find one, while the only recourse for a poisoned LLM output is to report it and pray it somehow gets fixed.

[rahimnathwani]

  Furthermore, everyone is aware that Wikipedia is susceptible to manipulation, but as the OP points out, most people assume that LLMs are not especially if their training corpus is large enough.

I'm not sure this is true. The opposite may be true.

Many people assume that LLMs are programmed by engineers (biased humans working at companies with vested interests) and that Wikipedia mods are saints.

[the_af]

I don't think anybody who has seen an edit war thinks wiki editors (not mods, mods have a different role) are saints.

But a Wikipedia page cannot survive stating something completely outside the consensus. Bizarre statements cannot survive because they require reputable references to back them.

There's bias in Wikipedia, of course, but it's the kind of bias already present in the society that created it.