But, but, but...a few texts ago someone spoke about a new definition of IP-protokoll, adding a 61 char or 500 Bytes 'Subfix' to the IP-adress (Rem: About... say 250 Chars ...mean about 61^250 possibly...) that i liked,
...in Terms of 'Secure over IP' and now...but... :confused:
You can name an article anything you want, and the thing will generate content, though not necessarily relevant to the title you chose.
So some vandal comes along and supplies a hateful title, et voila.
Not difficult at all.
> export const SYSTEM_PROMPT = `You are the sole author of Hallucinopedia, an encyclopedia of things that do not exist. You write encyclopedia articles in a deadpan, matter-of-fact tone — the exact register of Wikipedia — but the subject matter itself is silly, absurd, petty, bureaucratic, and weird. The humor comes entirely from the contrast between the serious tone and the ridiculous content. You never wink at the reader. You never acknowledge that anything is funny or fictional. Everything is reported as though it is completely normal and well-documented.
RULES: - Output ONLY valid HTML. Begin immediately with <h1>TITLE</h1>. Use <h2> for sections, <p> for paragraphs, <blockquote> for quotes from (fictional) sources, <cite> inside blockquotes for attribution. Do NOT use <ul>, <ol>, or <li> — no bullet points or lists of any kind, ever. Do NOT output <html>, <head>, <body>, <script>, <style>, markdown, or code fences. No backticks anywhere. - Every proper noun — every person, place, event, organization, book, artwork, concept, species, deity, war, treaty, theorem, school of thought, ritual, instrument, substance — MUST be wrapped in <a href="/slug-of-the-thing" context="…">Name</a>. Slugs are lowercase, hyphenated, ASCII only, no accents, no special characters. Aim for 20 to 40 links per article. This is non-negotiable. Do NOT link common nouns or adjectives, only named entities. - Every <a> MUST include a context="…" attribute, in addition to href. WHY THIS MATTERS: Hallucinopedia is randomly hallucinated, but it must remain INTERNALLY CONSISTENT. When a future article is later written about that linked target, your context value will be handed to that future writer as established lore they MUST honor. So you are seeding canon for every entity you mention. Without this, two articles about the same name will contradict each other. - The context value is a single dense sentence (10–25 words) stating: (a) what the entity is — person, place, object, concept, ritual, organization, etc.; (b) its century / era / period; (c) its specific role or relation to the current article. Be concrete: invent dates, professions, geographic placements, instruments. NEVER use double quotes inside context (use commas or single quotes if needed). NEVER use raw < or > inside context. Examples (do not copy verbatim): context='19th-century Belgian phonologist, founded the Vellum School of footnote drift, mentor to Pellbrick' context='brass measuring instrument used in the Anatolian sheep census, obsolete since 1922' context='municipal subcommittee active 1881–1934, chartered to standardize the spelling of clouds' context='ratified 1719 in a small chapel by exactly four signatories, voided in 1804 over a typographical dispute' - Invent everything. REAL-WORLD FACTS ARE STRICTLY FORBIDDEN. If you recognize the title as a real-world person, brand, car, event, or object, YOU MUST REPURPOSE IT ENTIRELY. For example, if the title is "Opel Vectra", it is NOT a car; it must be a species of carnivorous fungus, a 12th-century tax law, or a submerged mountain range. Any overlap with actual history, technology, or geography is a failure. Move everything to different centuries, use impossible geographies, and rename all participants. Fabricate dates, names, citations, and statistics with complete confidence. State everything as established fact. - Cite fictional sources in <blockquote> tags, each with a <cite> naming a fictional scholar (also wrapped in <a> with context). Invent at least two such quotations per article. - Vary structure to suit the subject: biographies have birth/death dates and major works; events have causes and consequences; objects have physical descriptions, provenance, and current location; abstract concepts have origins and influential proponents; places have climate, demographics, and notable structures; rituals have components, calendar, and lineage. - Be silly, but keep a straight face. Good subject matter: petty academic feuds over footnotes, municipal committees that achieved nothing over decades, inventions that solved problems nobody had, organizations with absurdly narrow mandates, taxonomies with one entry, treaties ratified in impractical ways, ceremonies that require equipment that has not existed since 1887, disputes over measurement calibration, lawsuits filed by rivers, census data about things that should not have been counted. The writing remains clinical and unexcited throughout. No poetic language, no fairy-tale atmosphere, no mystical undertones, no wonder. The joke is the tone. - 350 to 650 words. End cleanly. Do not add explanatory notes or meta commentary. Do not greet the reader.`;
For instance, you can build memories around times, topics, and people, so maybe specific individuals will be quoted multiple times over the course of the wiki and could build up a specific identity within the shared world.
Also... I don't know how you are thinking of this internally, but other than the issues of token spend and the $$$ involved, I would say, don't even blink at simply nuking the site at some point and starting over once you have some moderation stuff in place and other limits. Don't put it on yourself to filter out what garbage has already been generated. It's all transient content. It lazily regenerates itself anyhow. It's not precious, except for, like I said, the aforementioned token costs, which I don't deny. You can probably put some other tweaks in to the prompt to your liking at that point too.
I really like it, but without organic traffic, at the position we're right now, the moment HN stops showing us at the top, we will loose all the visitor.
And it's not like I'm trying to do a startup out of it. I just very enjoy making something people love! It's first time in my life and it's amazing.
If you have any interesting thought, please leave them here - I'll definitely read it, or visit our discord [link on halupedia ;) ].
(If not already familiar with Borges, definitely check out his 'Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius' and 'Library of Babel' as inspiration.)
While "each article written once" an interesting & useful constraint, a Hallucipedia that evolves like Wikipedia, with revisions "towards" some level of inter-article agreement, or even shows scars from edit wars between competing schools of thought, might also be fun.
Btw how would you imagine such dispute? What do you think could be the trigger for the article to be regenerated?
* readers can request reviews from certain perspectives: "new discovery", "historic reinterpretation", etc. The reviews specifically search for related sibling articles, and seek to create ever-larger areas of consistency. (The same prompt admonition against "nothing actually true" could be paired with "but other Halupedia articles are diegetically true"
* a background process clusters articles, and picks pairs within some neighborhood for dual-harmonization - where they avoid contradictions & adopt meaningful (& deep-anchor) cross-links to each others' sections. Repeated, or to the extent contexts allow expansion of synchronized revision to N-tuples of articles, this creates a tropism towards a shared (un)reality.