Isn't it also because lowering hallucinations requires repeated training with the same fact/data, which makes the final response closer to the training source itself and might lead to more direct charges of plagiarism (which may not be economical)?
You want engagement from a bot 1 on 1? Let me do it for you. I know politically incorrect opinions are tough to digest in the West. If someone doesn't comply with your echo chamber, you find it hard to wrap your head around it. That's how the lands of the free work nowadays sadly. I got one reply after posting it thrice. Says enough about why I did it, seemingly I'm the one who doesn't "want engaging dialogue" lol. Some people love to remain in delusion and take tags like "BBC", "citations" at face value. You are welcome to continue doing it. Isn't it funny how BBC is a govt funded agency but they are obviously unbiased coz they are white. That's why I said earlier it's a funny world we live in.
That would be true if WMF were running Wikipedia out of the goodness of their heart. They won’t leave India as they want to play a critical part in shaping public opinion among the largest group of people. Sadly people in India don’t agree with the political coverage of Wikipedia and other such media, which is what upsets almost all foreign NGOs, portals, companies in India. Some day it will become a case study as to how the whole internet (“civilized people”) in all countries was bending over backwards to be politically correct, while India was resisting the pressure to hand over their future to a “trusted group of altruists at the center of everything”.
That would be true if they were running Wikipedia out of the goodness of their heart. Wikipedia will not leave India as they are running to mould public opinion in a specific way. There is a reason foreign orgs are trying hard to meddle in Indian politics and the public still keeps electing the same leader which is unprecedented. Some day it will become a case study as to how the whole internet (“civilized people”) in all countries was bending over backwards to be politically correct, while India was resisting the pressure to hand over their future to a “trusted group of altruists at the center of everything”.
Wait and watch. Wikipedia will do anything but never leave India. It’s a funny world we live in where foreign NGOs and “organisations with good intentions” operate to control opinions of the biggest set of people in a shady neo-colonialistic manner. BBC’s antics in India should be studied in detail. NGOs and portals like caravan that sprang up out of nowhere and “stay relevant with little public support” (key phrase), serve one-sided narratives which people are now seeing through hence they elected the same leadership a third time (almost unprecedented). These narratives from BBC, Caravan are what Wikipedia uses to back their claims. They are upset that their multiple attempts at painting a leader as a perpetrator of mass genocide don’t stick in the minds of people.
Wait and watch. Wikipedia will do anything but never leave India. It’s a funny world we live in where foreign NGOs and “organisations with good intentions” operate to control opinions of the biggest set of people in a shady neo-colonialistic manner. BBC’s antics in India should be studied in detail. NGOs and portals like caravan that sprang up out of nowhere and “stay relevant with little public support” (key phrase), serve one-sided narratives which people are now seeing through hence they elected the same leadership a third time (almost unprecedented). These narratives from BBC, Caravan are what Wikipedia uses to back their claims. They are upset that their multiple attempts at painting a leader as a perpetrator of mass genocide don’t stick in the minds of people.
Wait and watch. Wikipedia will do anything but never leave India. It’s a funny world we live in where foreign NGOs and “organisations with good intentions” operate to control opinions of the biggest set of people in a shady neo-colonialistic manner. BBC’s antics in India should be studied in detail. NGOs and portals like caravan that sprang up out of nowhere and “stay relevant with little public support” (key phrase), serve one-sided narratives which people are now seeing through hence they elected the same leadership a third time (almost unprecedented). These narratives from BBC, Caravan are what Wikipedia uses to back their claims. They are upset that their multiple attempts at painting a leader as a perpetrator of mass genocide don’t stick in the minds of people.