o weasel their way out of legal responsibility while retaining
>>>> any credibility. My guess is there will be a requirement to state that the
>>>> information is AI generated and of entirely unknown and untested
>>>> reliability. How soon
is there will be a requirement to state that the
>>> information is AI generated and of entirely unknown and untested
>>> reliability. How soon to the first class action, I wonder. Lots of money
>>> for the lawyers. Cheers, Peter.
>>>
>>>
>>
Lots of money
>> for the lawyers. Cheers, Peter.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Subhashish [mailto:psubhash...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* 05 February 2023 06:37
>> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
>> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT
>>
>>
>>
>> J
eter
>
>
>
> *From:* Ilario Valdelli [mailto:valde...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 06 February 2023 09:38
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT
>
>
>
> And this is a problem.
>
>
>
> If ChatGPT uses open content, there is an infrin
...@gmail.com]
Sent: 06 February 2023 09:38
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT
And this is a problem.
If ChatGPT uses open content, there is an infringement of license.
Specifically the CC-by-sa if it uses Wikipedia. In this case the attribution
must be present
There is a problem of incompatibility of examples of AI like ChatGPT.
1st: Wikipedia is not primary source, the references are important. In
ChatGPT there are statements but not references to support the statements.
2nd: Bias. In Wikipedia all positions for a problem must be indicated.
ChatGPT
ted and of entirely unknown and untested
> reliability. How soon to the first class action, I wonder. Lots of money
> for the lawyers. Cheers, Peter.
>
>
>
> *From:* Subhashish [mailto:psubhash...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 05 February 2023 06:37
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
&
is AI generated and of entirely
unknown and untested reliability. How soon to the first class action, I wonder.
Lots of money for the lawyers. Cheers, Peter.
From: Subhashish [mailto:psubhash...@gmail.com]
Sent: 05 February 2023 06:37
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT
, adequately sourced, well written information,
>>> are they a problem or a solution?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Gnangarra [mailto:gnanga...@gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* 04 February 2023 17
utions can be verified, or not.
>> If they produce verifiable, adequately sourced, well written information,
>> are they a problem or a solution?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Gnangarra [mailto:gnanga...@gmail.com]
>>
23 17:04
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT
>
>
>
> I see our biggest challenge is going to be detecting these AI tools adding
> content whether it's media or articles, along with identifying when they
> are in use by sources. The failing of all
m: Gnangarra [mailto:gnanga...@gmail.com]
Sent: 04 February 2023 17:04
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT
I see our biggest challenge is going to be detecting these AI tools adding
content whether it's media or articles, along with identifying when they are in
us
ranularity of portions of, or selections of,
> articles.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Adam
>
> --
> *From:* Victoria Coleman
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 4, 2023 8:10 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT
>
> Hi Christophe
e ability to conduct meaningful AI research and
>> to adequately educate the next generation of AI researchers."
>>
>> See also: [1][2]
>>
>> [1]
>> https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2023/01/24/national-artificial-intelligence-research-resource-task-force-re
mk0705...@gmail.com
On Sat, Feb 4, 2023, 1:01 PM Steven Walling
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 9:47 PM Gergő Tisza wrote:
>
>> Just to give a sense of scale: OpenAI started with a $1 billion donation,
>> got another $1B as investment, and is now getting a larger investment from
>>
g at the granularity of portions of, or selections of,
> articles.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Adam
>
> --
> *From:* Victoria Coleman
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 4, 2023 8:10 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] R
AIRR-TF-Final-Report-2023.pdf
From: Steven Walling
Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2023 1:59 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 9:47 PM Gerg? Tisza
mailto:gti...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Just to give a sense of scale: OpenAI started with a $1
:59 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 9:47 PM Gerg? Tisza <gti...@gmail.com> wrote:
Just to give a sense of scale: OpenAI started with a $1 billion donation, got another $1B as investment, and is now getting a larger investment f
ubject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 9:47 PM Gerg? Tisza <gti...@gmail.com> wrote:
Just to give a sense of scale: OpenAI started with a $1 billion donation, got another $1B as investment, and is now getting a larger investment from Microsoft (undisclosed but rum
uary 4, 2023 1:59 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 9:47 PM Gergő Tisza
mailto:gti...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Just to give a sense of scale: OpenAI started with a $1 billion donation, got
another $1B as investment, and is now gettin
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 9:47 PM Gergő Tisza wrote:
> Just to give a sense of scale: OpenAI started with a $1 billion donation,
> got another $1B as investment, and is now getting a larger investment from
> Microsoft (undisclosed but rumored to be $10B). Assuming they spent most of
> their
Just to give a sense of scale: OpenAI started with a $1 billion donation,
got another $1B as investment, and is now getting a larger investment from
Microsoft (undisclosed but rumored to be $10B). Assuming they spent most of
their previous funding, which seems likely, their operational costs are
systems.
Best regards,
Adam
[1] http://www.phoster.com/dialogue-systems-and-information-retrieval/
From: Raymond Leonard
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2022 2:06 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT
Of relevance
Good article. I think it underlines the truth that without human curation all
these models produce is junk. The trick (which is far from simple btw) is to
figure out ways of harnessing the power of these models without breaking lives
or hearts. I think that’s what engineering is all about. We
Of relevance to this conversation:
https://www.wired.com/story/large-language-models-artificial-intelligence/
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 9:32 AM Neurodivergent Netizen <
idoh.idreamofhor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One concern I have is that all “oldbies” like myself have all seen bots
> basically
One concern I have is that all “oldbies” like myself have all seen bots
basically decay after whomever is maintaining goes inactive. Of course, this
could be mostly rectified by having the AI be open source. This leaves the
“people” aspect; that is, not only does the AI need to be maintained,
Anne,
Interestingly enough what these large companies have to spend a ton of money on
is creating and moderating content. In other words people. Passionate
volunteers in large numbers is what the movement has in abundance. Imagine the
power of combining the talents and passion of our community
Given what we already know about AI-like projects (think Siri, Alexis,
etc), they're the result of work done by organizations utilizing resources
hundreds of times greater than the resources within the entire Wikimedia
movement, and they'renot all that good if we're being honest. They're
entirely
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
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.
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
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
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
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
34 matches
Mail list logo
