[greggoB]

> It’s not “unfounded”. Wikipedia is biased and saying that’s “propaganda” or a result of propaganda is a nonsense non-argument.

It specifically is unfounded if you have no credible sources to back it up. "Trust me bro" doesn't qualify.

> What’s with this nitpicky stuff

This is HN, you should be prepared to validate what you're saying, or accept you'll be challenged to do so.

> It’s research. Sure there’s no guarantee but given progress in LLM, I would be optimistic rather than pessimistic.

This is a really poor argument when advocating it (AI) as a viable replacement for the status quo.

[kelipso]

There has been lots of discussion about wikipedia’s bias in HN and elsewhere for years and I’m not going to rehash all of that.

> […] AI) as a viable replacement for the status quo.

Given that the status quo is clearly biased and structurally unwilling to be unbiased due to existing political affiliation, even an AI that is not evaluated all that well will be better. It can only get better from this status quo, so it’s a fine argument.

[greggoB]

Discussion doesn't constitute consensus or conclusion - as I said several comments up, widespread bias in Wikipedia is a talking point propagated by those with an agenda to distort factual accuracy - people like Musk have hardly been subtle about this being their objective.

> even an AI that is not evaluated all that well will be better

This is just intellectual laziness. If you don't like Wikipedia that's fine, but if you're going to make the effort of characterising it as such on a public forum, the least you can do is make an effort to that point. This certainly isn't a "fine" argument at all.