* 17 May 2023 20:10
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: ChatGPT as a reliable source
>
>
>
> Though, this does run the risk of encouraging people to take the
> "backwards" approach to writing an article--writing some stuff, and then
> (hopef
(Apologies, accidentally deleted, content recovered)
From: Jimmy Wales
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 14:48:06 +0100
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: ChatGPT as a reliable source
On 2023-05-17 19:05, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
> I think any generative tool
It depends on how much you know about the topic, Both methods have their
advantages.
Cheers,
Peter
From: Todd Allen [mailto:toddmal...@gmail.com]
Sent: 17 May 2023 20:10
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: ChatGPT as a reliable source
Though, this does run the risk
On Wed, 17 May 2023 at 08:08, Kiril Simeonovski
wrote:
> Can ChatGPT be used as a reliable source and, if yes, how would the citation
> look like?
I asked Google Bard "who is Andy Mabbett" the other day. In three
short paragraphs, there were five serious mistakes, including the
wrong year of
. Competence is
required. Using a different tool just needs a slightly different competence.
Like a chainsaw instead of an axe
Cheers, Peter.
From: Denny Vrandečić [mailto:vrande...@gmail.com]
Sent: 18 May 2023 01:35
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: ChatGPT as a reliable
Dear Wikimedians,I would like to share with you the editorial (written in
French) of an academic magazine related to ChatGPT. Through what it says and
quotes made in particular, I think that WE Wikimedians, just need to rethink
the way we share knowledge and information through our different
I think Jimmy's proposal is spot on.
A generative AI is a tool, and whoever makes the edit is fully responsible
for the edit, no matter whether the text was written by the person or with
the help of a generative tool. This has the potential to open us for people
who are not good at formulating,
Though, this does run the risk of encouraging people to take the
"backwards" approach to writing an article--writing some stuff, and then
(hopefully at least) trying to come up with sources for it.
The much superior approach is to locate the available sources first, and
then to develop the
First: Wikipedia style for dense inline citations is one of the most
granular and articulate around, so we're pushing the boundaries in some
cases of research norms for clarity in sourcing. That's great; also means
sometimes we are considering nuances that may be new.
Second: We're approaching a
One way I think we can approach this is to think of it as being the
latest in this progression:
spellchecker -> grammar checker -> text generation support
We wouldn't have any sort of footnote or indication of any kind that a
spellchecker or grammar checker was
used by an editor, it's just
It's quite interesting how these models ended up being so illiterate and
dumb on source reading and interpretation, while so creative and plausible
at the same time.
I'm sure there's a reason for this, can somebody please point to a link to
a place where this is discussed, if you know it?
Thanks,
As has been pointed out above, we have the hallucination issues, because
AIs/LLMs deal in language and how probable a phrase seems to be, rather
than in facts. Beyond the hallucination issues, we have the fact that their
answers can't be accessed by other editors. Beyond the fact that their
Note that quite often it just *makes up* a plausible-looking source.
Because AI text generators just make up plausible text, not accurate
text.
On Wed, 17 May 2023 at 09:40, Lane Chance wrote:
>
> Keep in mind how fast these tools change. ChatGPT, Bard and
> competitors understand well the
Again at no point should even an improved version be considered a source;
at best it would be a research or editing tool.
On Wed, May 17, 2023, 4:40 AM Lane Chance wrote:
> Keep in mind how fast these tools change. ChatGPT, Bard and
> competitors understand well the issues with lack of sources,
Keep in mind how fast these tools change. ChatGPT, Bard and
competitors understand well the issues with lack of sources, and Bard
does sometimes put a suitable source in a footnote, even if it
(somewhat disappointingly) just links to wikipedia. There's likely to
be a variation soon that does a
Thank you everyone for your input.
Your considerations are very similar to mine, and they give a clear
direction towards what the guidelines regarding the use of ChatGPT should
point to.
Best regards,
Kiril
On Wed, 17 May 2023 at 10:11, Ilario valdelli wrote:
> Define "reliable source".
>
> A
Define "reliable source".
A source is reliable if can be consulted by other people than the editor
to check the content.
Is this possible with ChatGPT? No, becaue if you address the same
question to CHatGPT, you will have a different answer.
In this case how the people verificaying the
Hi Kiril,
Thanks for raising an interesting topic.
On the first question – ChatGPT obviously shouldn't be used as a reliable
source; for various reasons, but primarily because it's a text generator
that tends to confidently present completely factually incorrect
information. Even the notion of
I've mentioned AI text generators on English Wikipedia's Reliable
Sources Noticeboard a couple of times, and the consensus each time has
been that it's obvious that this rubbish absolutely doesn't belong in
en:wp in any manner. The discussions are how to deal with publishers
who indulge in this
19 matches
Mail list logo
