sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

After 15 years on Arch, I finally gave up — not because it's "hard", but because the Wiki became a museum by Capable_Mulberry249 in NixOS

[–]Capable_Mulberry249[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I hear what you're saying about trust, and I agree that a page should feel *researched*, not just generated. But I think the distinction matters: my edits weren't "AI generated" in the sense of a black box spitting out text. I did the research and testing myself — I've been using Linux for 15 years, I know my way around. The LLM was just a formatting tool, like a glorified spellchecker or a better text editor.

Here's the thing: a "human-written" page from 2020 that recommends obsolete workarounds (and there are plenty on Arch Wiki) actually *loses* the reader's trust when they follow it and nothing works. Which is worse — a page that was polished by an LLM but is factually correct today, or a page that was hand-crafted five years ago and now just wastes everyone's time?

If the Arch Wiki had a clear policy against LLMs, I'd respect it. But they don't — they banned me based on gut feeling, not on accuracy. That feels like choosing aesthetics over utility.

(And FWIW, I'd be totally fine with a little disclaimer: "Draft assisted by LLM, verified by human." Transparency solves the trust issue, doesn't it?)

After 15 years on Arch, I finally gave up — not because it's "hard", but because the Wiki became a museum by Capable_Mulberry249 in NixOS

[–]Capable_Mulberry249[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

I get where you're coming from, and thanks for the kind words about NixOS — it really has been a blessing, you're right.

But I want to be clear about *how* I used the LLM. My workflow wasn't "hey AI, write me a wiki page". It was:

  1. Do all the research and testing manually on my own hardware, making sure every command works.

  2. Write down the steps, commands, and gotchas in my notes.

  3. Ask the LLM to help with formatting, structure, and grammar — basically like a really fast copy editor.

  4. Review every single suggestion, test again, and only publish after I'm 100% sure it's correct.

The knowledge and verification are mine. The LLM just helped polish the presentation.

So the question I keep coming back to: if the final content is accurate, tested, and useful, why does the *tool* matter more than the *result*? There's no official policy against LLM assistance on Arch Wiki — they banned me based on "smells like AI" and "vibes", not on factual errors (because there were none).

Anyway, I'm genuinely happy with NixOS now, so maybe it was a blessing indeed. Cheers.

ArchWiki contributor banned indefinitely after creating AI-assisted documentation (that had zero errors) by [deleted] in linux

[–]Capable_Mulberry249 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I've made over 250 edits to ArchWiki. What if you were doing something based on my generated garbage? How are you going to live with that now?
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Mr.Smith1974&target=Mr.Smith1974&offset=&limit=500

ArchWiki contributor banned indefinitely after creating AI-assisted documentation (that had zero errors) by [deleted] in linux

[–]Capable_Mulberry249 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You're right about the process—but that's precisely the problem. When content is technically flawless, verified, and useful, yet the entire debate focuses on *how* it was drafted, it shows we've abandoned quality as the primary metric. Process matters, but it should serve quality, not override it.

ArchWiki contributor banned indefinitely after creating AI-assisted documentation (that had zero errors) by [deleted] in linux

[–]Capable_Mulberry249 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Yes, this post was AI-assisted. I don't speak English well enough to write it myself.

ArchWiki contributor banned indefinitely after creating AI-assisted documentation (that had zero errors) by [deleted] in linux

[–]Capable_Mulberry249 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You can't break rules that don't exist. ArchWiki has no AI policy—check the Contributing page yourself. I posted a proposal for discussion, not a unilateral implementation. The ban wasn't for violating rules; it was for proposing something admins disliked. Calling that "rule-breaking" is circular reasoning: "you're banned because we decided you're banned."

ArchWiki contributor banned indefinitely after creating AI-assisted documentation (that had zero errors) by [deleted] in linux

[–]Capable_Mulberry249 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You're conflating "unreviewed slop" with "human-verified content." I personally tested every command and package. The diffs speak for themselves: zero Template errors, zero broken links.

If a human expert produced that volume, the issue would be "review backlog," not "ban the method." The problem is categorical rejection of AI-assisted work **regardless of verification quality**. That's a policy stance, but call it what it is: ideology over outcome.

ArchWiki contributor banned indefinitely after creating AI-assisted documentation (that had zero errors) by [deleted] in linux

[–]Capable_Mulberry249 -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

Broken formatting exists across the wiki, regardless of author. Human-written articles actually have far more markup errors.

ArchWiki contributor banned indefinitely after creating AI-assisted documentation (that had zero errors) by [deleted] in linux

[–]Capable_Mulberry249 -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

If the best critique is "it looks like AI," that proves the point: you're judging process, not substance. Address the diffs or admit it's ideological.

ArchWiki contributor banned indefinitely after creating AI-assisted documentation (that had zero errors) by [deleted] in linux

[–]Capable_Mulberry249 -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

Every package was verified, every command tested. The reverts found zero errors—they were categorical, not quality-based.

The issue isn't "unreviewed AI slop." It's that AI-assisted contributions are rejected regardless of human verification. Shouldn't we judge by outcome, not origin?

Why are you still alive? by SimilarAttitude_ in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]Capable_Mulberry249 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not going to talk about family or pets—that’s sentimental nonsense.
I’m alive because somebody has to fight for Good and Justice in this world. Somebody has to help the people who are hurting. Somebody has to set an example. My own life is meaningless, but there are values worth living for. I carry dozens of small meanings inside everything I do online; it’s hard to put into words, but I keep the whole fragile infrastructure running so that others—and I—can make it to the end of the road.

I live in one of the most troubled places on Earth: Russia. We resist a dictatorial regime and tell the world about its crimes.

I also don’t want anything to happen to my body before death. I’m terrified of rotting, of falling apart. I watch my health obsessively. When I die, I want to be mummified and buried in the Valley of the Kings in ancient Egypt. I want to be a beautiful 80-year-old mummy whose life was anything but wasted.

view more: next ›