[Wikimedia-l] Chat GPT

[Victoria Coleman]

Hi everyone. I have seen some of the reactions to the narratives generated by 
Chat GPT. There is an obvious question (to me at least) as to whether a 
Wikipedia chat bot would be a legitimate UI for some users. To that end, I 
would have hoped that it would have been developed by the WMF but the 
Foundation has historically massively underinvested in AI. That said, and 
assuming that GPT Open source licensing is compatible with the movement norms, 
should the WMF include that UI in the product?

My other question is around the corpus that Open AI is using to train the bot. 
It is creating very fluid narratives that are massively false in many cases. 
Are they training on Wikipedia? Something else?

And to my earlier question, if GPT were to be trained on Wikipedia exclusively 
would that help abate the false narratives?

This is a significant matter for the  community and seeing us step to it would 
be very encouraging.

Best regards,

Victoria Coleman
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/CYPO3PEMM4FIWPNL6MRTORHZXVTS2VNN/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Victoria Coleman]

Thank you Ziko and Steven for the thoughtful responses.

My sense is that for a class for readers having a generative UI that returns an 
answer VS an article would be useful. It would probably put Quora out of 
business. :-)

If the models are not open source, this indeed would require developing our own 
models. For that kind of investment, we would probably want to have more 
application areas. Translation being one that Ziko already pointed out but also 
summarization. These kinds of Information retrieval queries would effectively 
index into specific parts of an article vs returning the whole thing.

Wikipedia as we all know is not perfect but it’s about the best you can get 
with the thousands of editors and reviewers doing quality control. If a bot was 
exclusively trained on Wikipedia, my guess is that the falsehood generation 
would be as minimal as it can get. Garbage in garbage out in all these models. 
Good stuff in good stuff out. I guess the falsehoods can also come when no 
material exists in the model. So instead of making stuff up, they could default 
to “I don’t know the answer to that”. Or in our case, we could add the topic to 
the list of article suggestions to editors…

I know I am almost day dreaming here but I can’t help but think that all the 
recent advances in AI could create significantly broader free knowledge 
pathways for every human being. And I don’t see us getting after them 
aggressively enough…

Best regards,

Victoria Coleman

> On Dec 29, 2022, at 5:17 PM, Steven Walling  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 4:09 PM Victoria Coleman 
>>  wrote:
>> Hi everyone. I have seen some of the reactions to the narratives generated 
>> by Chat GPT. There is an obvious question (to me at least) as to whether a 
>> Wikipedia chat bot would be a legitimate UI for some users. To that end, I 
>> would have hoped that it would have been developed by the WMF but the 
>> Foundation has historically massively underinvested in AI. That said, and 
>> assuming that GPT Open source licensing is compatible with the movement 
>> norms, should the WMF include that UI in the product?
> 
> This is a cool idea but what would the goals of developing a 
> Wikipedia-specific generative AI be? IMO it would be nice to have a natural 
> language search right in Wikipedia that could return factual answers not just 
> links to our (often too long) articles.
> 
> OpenAI models aren’t open source btw. Some of the products are free to use 
> right now, but their business model is to charge for API use etc. so 
> including it directly in Wikipedia is pretty much a non-starter. 
> 
>> My other question is around the corpus that Open AI is using to train the 
>> bot. It is creating very fluid narratives that are massively false in many 
>> cases. Are they training on Wikipedia? Something else?
> 
> They’re almost certainly using Wikipedia. The answer from ChatGPT is: 
> 
> “ChatGPT is a chatbot model developed by OpenAI. It was trained on a dataset 
> of human-generated text, including data from a variety of sources such as 
> books, articles, and websites. It is possible that some of the data used to 
> train ChatGPT may have come from Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is a widely-used 
> source of information and is likely to be included in many datasets of 
> human-generated text.”
> 
>> And to my earlier question, if GPT were to be trained on Wikipedia 
>> exclusively would that help abate the false narratives
> 
> Who knows but we would have to develop our own models to test this idea. 
> 
>> This is a significant matter for the  community and seeing us step to it 
>> would be very encouraging.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Victoria Coleman
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/CYPO3PEMM4FIWPNL6MRTORHZXVTS2VNN/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/G57JUOQ5S5ZHXHWJN7LPYEBZMFVMJGVO/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/WH6SHKVKPBVKPPWID5WFM2RSY3ZUUSQ6/
To 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Steven Walling]

On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 4:09 PM Victoria Coleman <
vstavridoucole...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone. I have seen some of the reactions to the narratives generated
> by Chat GPT. There is an obvious question (to me at least) as to whether a
> Wikipedia chat bot would be a legitimate UI for some users. To that end, I
> would have hoped that it would have been developed by the WMF but the
> Foundation has historically massively underinvested in AI. That said, and
> assuming that GPT Open source licensing is compatible with the movement
> norms, should the WMF include that UI in the product?


This is a cool idea but what would the goals of developing a
Wikipedia-specific generative AI be? IMO it would be nice to have a natural
language search right in Wikipedia that could return factual answers not
just links to our (often too long) articles.

OpenAI models aren’t open source btw. Some of the products are free to use
right now, but their business model is to charge for API use etc. so
including it directly in Wikipedia is pretty much a non-starter.

My other question is around the corpus that Open AI is using to train the
> bot. It is creating very fluid narratives that are massively false in many
> cases. Are they training on Wikipedia? Something else?


They’re almost certainly using Wikipedia. The answer from ChatGPT is:

“ChatGPT is a chatbot model developed by OpenAI. It was trained on a
dataset of human-generated text, including data from a variety of sources
such as books, articles, and websites. It is possible that some of the data
used to train ChatGPT may have come from Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is a
widely-used source of information and is likely to be included in many
datasets of human-generated text.”

And to my earlier question, if GPT were to be trained on Wikipedia
> exclusively would that help abate the false narratives


Who knows but we would have to develop our own models to test this idea.

>
This is a significant matter for the  community and seeing us step to it
> would be very encouraging.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Victoria Coleman
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/CYPO3PEMM4FIWPNL6MRTORHZXVTS2VNN/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/G57JUOQ5S5ZHXHWJN7LPYEBZMFVMJGVO/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Raymond Leonard]

As a friend wrote on a Slack thread about the topic, "ChatGPT can produce
results that appear stunningly intelligent, and there are things that I’ve seen
that really leave me scratching my head- “how on Earth did it DO that?!?”
But it’s important to remember that it isn’t actually intelligent.  It’s not
“thinking.”  It’s more of a glorified version of autosuggest.  When it
apologizes, it’s not really apologizing, it’s just finding text that fits
the self description it was fed and that looks related to what you fed it."

The person initiating the thread had asked ChatGPT "What are the 5 biggest
intentional communities on each continent?" (As an aside, this was as
challenging as the question that led to Wikidata, "What are the ten largest
cities in the world that have women mayors?") One of the answers ChatGPT
gave for Europe was "Ikaria (Greece)". As near as I can determine, there is
no intentional community of any size in Ikaria. However, the Icarians
 were a 19th-century intentional
community in the US founded by French expatriates. It was named after a
utopian novel, *Voyage en Icarie*, that was written by Étienne Cabet. He
chose the Greek island of Icaria as the setting of his utopian vision.
Interesting that ChatGPT may have conflated these.

It seems that given a prompt, ChatGPT shuffles & regurgitates facts. Just
as a card dealer deals a good hand, sometimes ChatGPT seems to make sense,
but I think at present it really is " a glorified version of autosuggest."

Yours
Peaceray



On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 6:39 PM Gnangarra  wrote:

> I think the simplest answer is yes its an artificial writer but its not
> intelligence as the name implies but rather just a piece of software that
> gives answers according to the methodology of that software. The garbage in
> garbage out format, it can never be better than the programmers behind the
> machine
>
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 09:56, Victoria Coleman <
> vstavridoucole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you Ziko and Steven for the thoughtful responses.
>>
>> My sense is that for a class for readers having a generative UI that
>> returns an answer VS an article would be useful. It would probably put
>> Quora out of business. :-)
>>
>> If the models are not open source, this indeed would require developing
>> our own models. For that kind of investment, we would probably want to have
>> more application areas. Translation being one that Ziko already pointed out
>> but also summarization. These kinds of Information retrieval queries would
>> effectively index into specific parts of an article vs returning the whole
>> thing.
>>
>> Wikipedia as we all know is not perfect but it’s about the best you can
>> get with the thousands of editors and reviewers doing quality control. If a
>> bot was exclusively trained on Wikipedia, my guess is that the falsehood
>> generation would be as minimal as it can get. Garbage in garbage out in all
>> these models. Good stuff in good stuff out. I guess the falsehoods can also
>> come when no material exists in the model. So instead of making stuff up,
>> they could default to “I don’t know the answer to that”. Or in our case, we
>> could add the topic to the list of article suggestions to editors…
>>
>> I know I am almost day dreaming here but I can’t help but think that all
>> the recent advances in AI could create significantly broader free knowledge
>> pathways for every human being. And I don’t see us getting after them
>> aggressively enough…
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Victoria Coleman
>>
>> On Dec 29, 2022, at 5:17 PM, Steven Walling 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 4:09 PM Victoria Coleman <
>> vstavridoucole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone. I have seen some of the reactions to the narratives
>>> generated by Chat GPT. There is an obvious question (to me at least) as to
>>> whether a Wikipedia chat bot would be a legitimate UI for some users. To
>>> that end, I would have hoped that it would have been developed by the WMF
>>> but the Foundation has historically massively underinvested in AI. That
>>> said, and assuming that GPT Open source licensing is compatible with the
>>> movement norms, should the WMF include that UI in the product?
>>
>>
>> This is a cool idea but what would the goals of developing a
>> Wikipedia-specific generative AI be? IMO it would be nice to have a natural
>> language search right in Wikipedia that could return factual answers not
>> just links to our (often too long) articles.
>>
>> OpenAI models aren’t open source btw. Some of the products are free to
>> use right now, but their business model is to charge for API use etc. so
>> including it directly in Wikipedia is pretty much a non-starter.
>>
>> My other question is around the corpus that Open AI is using to train the
>>> bot. It is creating very fluid narratives that are massively false in many
>>> cases. Are they training on Wikipedia? Something else?
>>
>>
>> They’re almost 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Ziko van Dijk]

Hello Victorioa,

Thank you for the great question!

In my humble opinion, ChatGPT is far away from producing useful
Wikipedia content. My own experience is here to see:
https://youtu.be/zKPEyxYt5kg

But anyone who wants to use the existing AI website(s) may use the AI
at pleasure and copy content from it. Finally, it is the individual
editor who is responsible for her edits.

Should we include AI in the user interface of Wikipedia? I tend to say
no. But I have to think about automatic translation services: these
are very good nowadays, and I'd actually wish one being integrated in
the Wikipedia translation tool! Of course, the human editor MUST
ALWAYS check the translation with her own eyes. But the integration
into the translation tool would be very welcome.

There is resistance against the inclusion of automatic translation,
because that would make it easier for lazy editors to abuse it. (Not
checking the translations personally.)

And that is my objection against the integration of AI text production
in Wikipedia's website: it would make it lazy editors too easy to add
dubious content.

(I know that it is a contradiction if I welcome the automatic
translation but not the AI text production, but that is partially due
to the specific structure of the translation tool.)

At the moment, AI texts often look excellent but are very unreliable.
And that makes it so dangerous.

Kind regards,
User:Ziko

P.S.: One example of todays's playing with ChatGPT. Who was
responsible for the 1933 Reichstag fire? According to AI, the national
socialists. There is proof for that.
- Oh? I learned that the historians are still arguining. So I asked
the AI: What is the proof?
- And the AI gave me some motives of the national socialists, but no
proof. Instead, the AI offered that "Georg Irminger" was a national
socialist involved in the fire, according to his own confession. But
that confession might have been made under torture.
- I wonder about the name and Google it. Google knows of several
people named Georg(e) Irminger, but all of them died before 1933. I
tell the AI that Georg Irminger does not exist!
- The AI apologizes for giving me wrong information. Instead, some
Georg Elser was involved in the fire, according to his own confession.
But that confession might have been made unter torture.

Funny aftermath: I mentioned this conversation in a Facebook group
"Digital history" (in German). One person answered: "But no, Georg
Elser was not related to the fire, he later tried to shoot Hitler!"
(Georg Elser did not try to shoot anyone, he tried to kill Hitler with
a bomb in 1939.)











Am Fr., 30. Dez. 2022 um 01:10 Uhr schrieb Victoria Coleman
:
>
> Hi everyone. I have seen some of the reactions to the narratives generated by 
> Chat GPT. There is an obvious question (to me at least) as to whether a 
> Wikipedia chat bot would be a legitimate UI for some users. To that end, I 
> would have hoped that it would have been developed by the WMF but the 
> Foundation has historically massively underinvested in AI. That said, and 
> assuming that GPT Open source licensing is compatible with the movement 
> norms, should the WMF include that UI in the product?
>
> My other question is around the corpus that Open AI is using to train the 
> bot. It is creating very fluid narratives that are massively false in many 
> cases. Are they training on Wikipedia? Something else?
>
> And to my earlier question, if GPT were to be trained on Wikipedia 
> exclusively would that help abate the false narratives?
>
> This is a significant matter for the  community and seeing us step to it 
> would be very encouraging.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Victoria Coleman
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at 
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/CYPO3PEMM4FIWPNL6MRTORHZXVTS2VNN/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/6OR7C4TMXTEVLAJVQ6WYEIGZSQTWSDSI/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Gnangarra]

I think the simplest answer is yes its an artificial writer but its not
intelligence as the name implies but rather just a piece of software that
gives answers according to the methodology of that software. The garbage in
garbage out format, it can never be better than the programmers behind the
machine

On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 09:56, Victoria Coleman 
wrote:

> Thank you Ziko and Steven for the thoughtful responses.
>
> My sense is that for a class for readers having a generative UI that
> returns an answer VS an article would be useful. It would probably put
> Quora out of business. :-)
>
> If the models are not open source, this indeed would require developing
> our own models. For that kind of investment, we would probably want to have
> more application areas. Translation being one that Ziko already pointed out
> but also summarization. These kinds of Information retrieval queries would
> effectively index into specific parts of an article vs returning the whole
> thing.
>
> Wikipedia as we all know is not perfect but it’s about the best you can
> get with the thousands of editors and reviewers doing quality control. If a
> bot was exclusively trained on Wikipedia, my guess is that the falsehood
> generation would be as minimal as it can get. Garbage in garbage out in all
> these models. Good stuff in good stuff out. I guess the falsehoods can also
> come when no material exists in the model. So instead of making stuff up,
> they could default to “I don’t know the answer to that”. Or in our case, we
> could add the topic to the list of article suggestions to editors…
>
> I know I am almost day dreaming here but I can’t help but think that all
> the recent advances in AI could create significantly broader free knowledge
> pathways for every human being. And I don’t see us getting after them
> aggressively enough…
>
> Best regards,
>
> Victoria Coleman
>
> On Dec 29, 2022, at 5:17 PM, Steven Walling 
> wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 4:09 PM Victoria Coleman <
> vstavridoucole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone. I have seen some of the reactions to the narratives
>> generated by Chat GPT. There is an obvious question (to me at least) as to
>> whether a Wikipedia chat bot would be a legitimate UI for some users. To
>> that end, I would have hoped that it would have been developed by the WMF
>> but the Foundation has historically massively underinvested in AI. That
>> said, and assuming that GPT Open source licensing is compatible with the
>> movement norms, should the WMF include that UI in the product?
>
>
> This is a cool idea but what would the goals of developing a
> Wikipedia-specific generative AI be? IMO it would be nice to have a natural
> language search right in Wikipedia that could return factual answers not
> just links to our (often too long) articles.
>
> OpenAI models aren’t open source btw. Some of the products are free to use
> right now, but their business model is to charge for API use etc. so
> including it directly in Wikipedia is pretty much a non-starter.
>
> My other question is around the corpus that Open AI is using to train the
>> bot. It is creating very fluid narratives that are massively false in many
>> cases. Are they training on Wikipedia? Something else?
>
>
> They’re almost certainly using Wikipedia. The answer from ChatGPT is:
>
> “ChatGPT is a chatbot model developed by OpenAI. It was trained on a
> dataset of human-generated text, including data from a variety of sources
> such as books, articles, and websites. It is possible that some of the data
> used to train ChatGPT may have come from Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is a
> widely-used source of information and is likely to be included in many
> datasets of human-generated text.”
>
> And to my earlier question, if GPT were to be trained on Wikipedia
>> exclusively would that help abate the false narratives
>
>
> Who knows but we would have to develop our own models to test this idea.
>
>>
> This is a significant matter for the  community and seeing us step to it
>> would be very encouraging.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Victoria Coleman
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/CYPO3PEMM4FIWPNL6MRTORHZXVTS2VNN/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/G57JUOQ5S5ZHXHWJN7LPYEBZMFVMJGVO/
> To unsubscribe send an email to 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Hi,

just to remark that it superficially looks like a great tool for small
language Wikipedias (for which the translation tool is typically not
available). One can train the tool in some less common language using the
dictionary and some texts, and then let it fill the project with a
thousands of articles. (As an aside, in fact, one probably can train it to
the soon-to-be-extint languages and save them until the moment there is any
interest for revival, but nobody seems to be interested). However, there is
a high potential for abuse, as I can imagine people not speaking the
language running the tool and creating thousands of substandard articles -
we have seen this done manually, and I would be very cautious allowing this.

Best
Yaroslav

On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 4:57 AM Raymond Leonard <
raymond.f.leonard...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As a friend wrote on a Slack thread about the topic, "ChatGPT can produce
> results that appear stunningly intelligent, and there are things that I’ve
>  seen that really leave me scratching my head- “how on Earth did it DO
> that?!?”  But it’s important to remember that it isn’t actually
> intelligent.  It’s not “thinking.”  It’s more of a glorified version of
> autosuggest.  When it apologizes, it’s not really apologizing, it’s just
> finding text that fits the self description it was fed and that looks
> related to what you fed it."
>
> The person initiating the thread had asked ChatGPT "What are the 5
> biggest intentional communities on each continent?" (As an aside, this
> was as challenging as the question that led to Wikidata, "What are the ten
> largest cities in the world that have women mayors?") One of the answers
> ChatGPT gave for Europe was "Ikaria (Greece)". As near as I can determine,
> there is no intentional community of any size in Ikaria. However, the
> Icarians  were a 19th-century
> intentional community in the US founded by French expatriates. It was named
> after a utopian novel, *Voyage en Icarie*, that was written by Étienne
> Cabet. He chose the Greek island of Icaria as the setting of his utopian
> vision. Interesting that ChatGPT may have conflated these.
>
> It seems that given a prompt, ChatGPT shuffles & regurgitates facts. Just
> as a card dealer deals a good hand, sometimes ChatGPT seems to make sense,
> but I think at present it really is " a glorified version of autosuggest."
>
> Yours
> Peaceray
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 6:39 PM Gnangarra  wrote:
>
>> I think the simplest answer is yes its an artificial writer but its not
>> intelligence as the name implies but rather just a piece of software that
>> gives answers according to the methodology of that software. The garbage in
>> garbage out format, it can never be better than the programmers behind the
>> machine
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 09:56, Victoria Coleman <
>> vstavridoucole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thank you Ziko and Steven for the thoughtful responses.
>>>
>>> My sense is that for a class for readers having a generative UI that
>>> returns an answer VS an article would be useful. It would probably put
>>> Quora out of business. :-)
>>>
>>> If the models are not open source, this indeed would require developing
>>> our own models. For that kind of investment, we would probably want to have
>>> more application areas. Translation being one that Ziko already pointed out
>>> but also summarization. These kinds of Information retrieval queries would
>>> effectively index into specific parts of an article vs returning the whole
>>> thing.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia as we all know is not perfect but it’s about the best you can
>>> get with the thousands of editors and reviewers doing quality control. If a
>>> bot was exclusively trained on Wikipedia, my guess is that the falsehood
>>> generation would be as minimal as it can get. Garbage in garbage out in all
>>> these models. Good stuff in good stuff out. I guess the falsehoods can also
>>> come when no material exists in the model. So instead of making stuff up,
>>> they could default to “I don’t know the answer to that”. Or in our case, we
>>> could add the topic to the list of article suggestions to editors…
>>>
>>> I know I am almost day dreaming here but I can’t help but think that all
>>> the recent advances in AI could create significantly broader free knowledge
>>> pathways for every human being. And I don’t see us getting after them
>>> aggressively enough…
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Victoria Coleman
>>>
>>> On Dec 29, 2022, at 5:17 PM, Steven Walling 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 4:09 PM Victoria Coleman <
>>> vstavridoucole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hi everyone. I have seen some of the reactions to the narratives
 generated by Chat GPT. There is an obvious question (to me at least) as to
 whether a Wikipedia chat bot would be a legitimate UI for some users. To
 that end, I would have hoped that it would have been developed by the WMF