it would be a competitor°hard word to Wikipedia°hard word.
instead of the encyclopedia°hard word anyone can edit°hard word, it is the encyclopedia°hard word that only the machine can edit°hard word. but, people can give the machine directions on how to edit°hard word.
----
There are about 6 million°hard word articles°hard word on Wikipedia°hard word. But the number of "interesting" articles°hard word is under 100k. The rest are in a bunch°hard word of "collections°hard word". 💡 the collections°hard word need managing°hard word, but are less work
- geographic°hard word locations°hard word
- sports people/statistics°hard word
- politics°hard word people/statistics°hard word
- entertainment°hard word people/statistics°hard word
- films°hard word, songs, books, etc°hard word.
... there are probably 10-20 more "collections°hard word" of a similar size.
----
There is also "news". Which is largely an intractable°hard word problem.
💬 News is the first rough draft°hard word of history. --Phil°hard word Graham°hard word
The barrier°hard word is less a "technical°hard word" one (although the acrobatics°hard word of writing accurate°hard word information based°hard word on incomplete-and-biased°hard word reporting is a technical°hard word challenge°hard word) and more of a "practical°hard word" one. If you have too much news, you cannibalize°hard word your sources. 🌎 and, you attract°hard word the attention of the people who make the news
Fortunately°hard word, as we can keep editors°hard word out, it should be easier to not have those articles°hard word.
----
Some "historical°hard word" topics°hard word are more contentious°hard word than others. Initially°hard word, there can be "competing°hard word narratives°hard word".
💡 do we allow Tartaria°hard word or Fomenko-ism°hard word as a competing°hard word narrative°hard word? the answer must be the same as do we allow creationism°hard word as a competing°hard word narrative°hard word.
⚙️ there is the practical°hard word answer of this is how we keep it out of the main article°hard word. but, once again, as we can keep editors°hard word out, this is not a controlling°hard word requirement°hard word.
----
this leaves the question of who is evaluating the content°hard word and who is reading the content°hard word. 🔥 what if you build it and nobody comes?
other than sell your soul to some ideological°hard word movement, i haven't come up with any plausible°hard word answers here. 💡 there are several new LLM-related°hard word ideological°hard word movements. 📣 the Great LDS°hard word Encyclopedia°hard word sounds more palatable°hard word
----
🔥 in the future the machine will know the answers. the encyclopedia°hard word will just be routing°hard word and caching°hard word.
⚙️ routing°hard word is "knowing which expert to ask about Sammy°hard word Sosa°hard word or John°hard word Culver°hard word". caching°hard word is "sometimes it does make sense to have a saved version°hard word on-hand°hard word, rather than asking the machine only after someone asks for the answer"
----
there is, also, the problem of the machine probably can't write a high-quality°hard word article°hard word about Pentecost°hard word just yet°hard word. but that is 2 years out, at most.