Will AI be successfully editing Wikipedia unassisted, adding substantive original cited prose, before 2026?

English Wikipedia, mainspace.

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

Does it count if it would do that against the rules? I imagine a private auto-GPT-6 agent deciding to run a smear campaign/promote X product.

@xxx Yes, but if it's effectively detected and reverted, then it wouldn't be successful.

@xxx I will add that, in the spirit of the question, if it evades reversion merely because it just so happens that nobody sees it, because it's obscure, or something like that, rather than because of the quality of the writing, I would not consider that to be a success.

@BenjaminIkuta what if just barely happens on a technicality, like grammar correction? Because Wikipedia has a lot of mundane tasks where setting up the ai is more work than doing it.

@MakrIngrajam Grammar correction is not substantive original prose.

@BenjaminIkuta Wikipedia editing is a polticial process dominated by nerd fascism. Not even humans can edit Wikipedia without heavy review by moderators so unless Wikipedia symbolically allows an ai to make a token edit it will never be allowed.

An AI that scrapes news to add automatic updates to ongoin events, for example results of sporting events

predicts NO

@EduardoFilippi Tables of sports scores aren't exactly "substantive original cited prose."

predicts NO

Given Wikipedia nutritious history of beaucracy and difficulty when it comes to updating articles, I have EXTREME doubts

@Qvex yeah, me too. This market is overvalued imo.

When you say 'unassisted', is it OK for a human to prompt the AI by asking/triggering a command to make it edit a particular page, or does the AI have to be fully autonomous? In the latter case, regardless of capabilities, wikipedia might well ban such activity (or in the former, but it's somewhat less likely).

@AngolaMaldives If the human can review the edit and choose to stop it before it's published, then it doesn't count.

More related questions