[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Eduardo Testart]

Hi again,

There was a very quick follow up:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/17/podcasts/the-daily/the-online-search-wars-got-scary-fast.html

If you found the prior podcast interesting, you won't regret to check this
one as well.


Best!


On Fri, Feb 17, 2023, 05:24 Ali Kia  wrote:

> Hi.
> Thank you for your cooperation.
>
> در تاریخ پنجشنبه ۱۶ فوریهٔ ۲۰۲۳،‏ ۱۸:۱۸ The Cunctator 
> نوشت:
>
>> This is almost definitely the case.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2023, 2:39 AM Ilario Valdelli  wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2023, 08:12 Peter Southwood, 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> “Not citing sources is probably a conscious design choice, as citing
>>>> sources would mean sharing the sources used to train the language models”
>>>> This may be a choice that comes back to bite them. Without citing their
>>>> sources, they are unreliable as a source for anything one does not know
>>>> already. Someone will have a bad consequence from relying on the
>>>> information and will sue the publisher. It will be interesting to see how
>>>> they plan to 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 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just to clarify, my point was not about Getty to begin with. Whether
>>>> Getty would win and whether a big corporation should own such a large
>>>> amount of visual content are questions outside this particular thread. It
>>>> would certainly be interesting to see how things roll.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But AI/ML is way more than just looking. Training with large models is
>>>> a very sophisticated and technical process. Data annotation among many
>>>> other forms of labour are done by real people. the article I had linked
>>>> earlier tells a lot about the real world consequences of AI. I'm certain
>>>> AI/ML, especially when we're talking about language models like ChatGPT,
>>>> are far from innocent looking/reading. For starters, derivative of works,
>>>> except Public Domain ones, must attribute the authors. Any provision for
>>>> attribution is deliberately removed from systems like ChatGPT and that only
>>>> gives corporations like OpenAI a free ride sans accountability.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Subhashish
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2023, 4:41 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not so sure Getty's got a case, though. If the images are on the
>>>> Web, is using them to train an AI something copyright would cover? That to
>>>> me seems more equivalent to just looking at the images, and there's no
>>>> copyright problem in going to Getty's site and just looking at a bunch of
>>>> their pictures.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But it will be interesting to see how that one shakes out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Todd
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 11:47 AM Subhashish 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not citing sources is probably a conscious design choice, as citing
>>>> sources would mean sharing the sources used to train the language models.
>>>> Getty has just sued Stability AI, alleging the use of 12 million
>>>> photographs without permission or compensation. Imagine if Stability had to
>>>> purchase from Getty through a legal process. For starters, Getty might not
>>>> have agreed in the first place. Bulk-scaping publicly visible text in
>>>> text-based AIs like ChatGPT would mean scraping text with copyrigh

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Ali Kia]

Hi.
Thank you for your cooperation.

در تاریخ پنجشنبه ۱۶ فوریهٔ ۲۰۲۳،‏ ۱۸:۱۸ The Cunctator 
نوشت:

> This is almost definitely the case.
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2023, 2:39 AM Ilario Valdelli  wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2023, 08:12 Peter Southwood, 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> “Not citing sources is probably a conscious design choice, as citing
>>> sources would mean sharing the sources used to train the language models”
>>> This may be a choice that comes back to bite them. Without citing their
>>> sources, they are unreliable as a source for anything one does not know
>>> already. Someone will have a bad consequence from relying on the
>>> information and will sue the publisher. It will be interesting to see how
>>> they plan to 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 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just to clarify, my point was not about Getty to begin with. Whether
>>> Getty would win and whether a big corporation should own such a large
>>> amount of visual content are questions outside this particular thread. It
>>> would certainly be interesting to see how things roll.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But AI/ML is way more than just looking. Training with large models is a
>>> very sophisticated and technical process. Data annotation among many other
>>> forms of labour are done by real people. the article I had linked earlier
>>> tells a lot about the real world consequences of AI. I'm certain AI/ML,
>>> especially when we're talking about language models like ChatGPT, are far
>>> from innocent looking/reading. For starters, derivative of works, except
>>> Public Domain ones, must attribute the authors. Any provision for
>>> attribution is deliberately removed from systems like ChatGPT and that only
>>> gives corporations like OpenAI a free ride sans accountability.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Subhashish
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2023, 4:41 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not so sure Getty's got a case, though. If the images are on the
>>> Web, is using them to train an AI something copyright would cover? That to
>>> me seems more equivalent to just looking at the images, and there's no
>>> copyright problem in going to Getty's site and just looking at a bunch of
>>> their pictures.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But it will be interesting to see how that one shakes out.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Todd
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 11:47 AM Subhashish 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Not citing sources is probably a conscious design choice, as citing
>>> sources would mean sharing the sources used to train the language models.
>>> Getty has just sued Stability AI, alleging the use of 12 million
>>> photographs without permission or compensation. Imagine if Stability had to
>>> purchase from Getty through a legal process. For starters, Getty might not
>>> have agreed in the first place. Bulk-scaping publicly visible text in
>>> text-based AIs like ChatGPT would mean scraping text with copyright. But
>>> even reusing CC BY-SA content would require attribution. None of the AI
>>> platforms attributes their sources because they did not acquire content in
>>> legal and ethical ways [1]. Large language models won't be large and
>>> releases won't happen fast if they actually start acquiring content
>>> gradually from trustworthy sources. It took so many years for hundreds and
>>> thousands of Wikimedians to take Wikipedias in different languages to where
>>> they are for a reason.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/
>>>

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[The Cunctator]

This is almost definitely the case.

On Mon, Feb 6, 2023, 2:39 AM Ilario Valdelli  wrote:

> 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.
>
> Kind regards
>
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2023, 08:12 Peter Southwood, 
> wrote:
>
>> “Not citing sources is probably a conscious design choice, as citing
>> sources would mean sharing the sources used to train the language models”
>> This may be a choice that comes back to bite them. Without citing their
>> sources, they are unreliable as a source for anything one does not know
>> already. Someone will have a bad consequence from relying on the
>> information and will sue the publisher. It will be interesting to see how
>> they plan to 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 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
>>
>>
>>
>> Just to clarify, my point was not about Getty to begin with. Whether
>> Getty would win and whether a big corporation should own such a large
>> amount of visual content are questions outside this particular thread. It
>> would certainly be interesting to see how things roll.
>>
>>
>>
>> But AI/ML is way more than just looking. Training with large models is a
>> very sophisticated and technical process. Data annotation among many other
>> forms of labour are done by real people. the article I had linked earlier
>> tells a lot about the real world consequences of AI. I'm certain AI/ML,
>> especially when we're talking about language models like ChatGPT, are far
>> from innocent looking/reading. For starters, derivative of works, except
>> Public Domain ones, must attribute the authors. Any provision for
>> attribution is deliberately removed from systems like ChatGPT and that only
>> gives corporations like OpenAI a free ride sans accountability.
>>
>>
>>
>> Subhashish
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2023, 4:41 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>>
>> I'm not so sure Getty's got a case, though. If the images are on the Web,
>> is using them to train an AI something copyright would cover? That to me
>> seems more equivalent to just looking at the images, and there's no
>> copyright problem in going to Getty's site and just looking at a bunch of
>> their pictures.
>>
>>
>>
>> But it will be interesting to see how that one shakes out.
>>
>>
>>
>> Todd
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 11:47 AM Subhashish  wrote:
>>
>> Not citing sources is probably a conscious design choice, as citing
>> sources would mean sharing the sources used to train the language models.
>> Getty has just sued Stability AI, alleging the use of 12 million
>> photographs without permission or compensation. Imagine if Stability had to
>> purchase from Getty through a legal process. For starters, Getty might not
>> have agreed in the first place. Bulk-scaping publicly visible text in
>> text-based AIs like ChatGPT would mean scraping text with copyright. But
>> even reusing CC BY-SA content would require attribution. None of the AI
>> platforms attributes their sources because they did not acquire content in
>> legal and ethical ways [1]. Large language models won't be large and
>> releases won't happen fast if they actually start acquiring content
>> gradually from trustworthy sources. It took so many years for hundreds and
>> thousands of Wikimedians to take Wikipedias in different languages to where
>> they are for a reason.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/
>>
>>
>> Subhashish
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 1:06 PM Peter Southwood <
>> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>> From what I have seen the AIs are not great on citing sources. If they
>> start citing reliable sources, their contributions can be verified, or not.
>> If they produce verifiable, adequately sourced, well written information,
>> are they a problem or a solution?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> P

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Eduardo Testart]

Hi,

This podcast might be interesting for some on this thread:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/15/podcasts/the-daily/chat-gpt-microsoft-bing-artificial-intelligence.html

There might be chance that something different or new is happening.

Who knows...


Best,

On Mon, Feb 6, 2023, 07:26 Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> It would depend on whether it uses the text or the information/data. My
> guess is that the more it uses its own words, the more drift in meaning
> there will be, and the less reliable the result, but I have no way to test
> this hypothesis.
>
>  Cheers, Peter
>
>
>
> *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 infringement of license.
>
>
>
> Specifically the CC-by-sa if it uses Wikipedia. In this case the
> attribution must be present.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2023, 08:12 Peter Southwood, 
> wrote:
>
> “Not citing sources is probably a conscious design choice, as citing
> sources would mean sharing the sources used to train the language models”
> This may be a choice that comes back to bite them. Without citing their
> sources, they are unreliable as a source for anything one does not know
> already. Someone will have a bad consequence from relying on the
> information and will sue the publisher. It will be interesting to see how
> they plan to 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 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
>
>
>
> Just to clarify, my point was not about Getty to begin with. Whether Getty
> would win and whether a big corporation should own such a large amount of
> visual content are questions outside this particular thread. It would
> certainly be interesting to see how things roll.
>
>
>
> But AI/ML is way more than just looking. Training with large models is a
> very sophisticated and technical process. Data annotation among many other
> forms of labour are done by real people. the article I had linked earlier
> tells a lot about the real world consequences of AI. I'm certain AI/ML,
> especially when we're talking about language models like ChatGPT, are far
> from innocent looking/reading. For starters, derivative of works, except
> Public Domain ones, must attribute the authors. Any provision for
> attribution is deliberately removed from systems like ChatGPT and that only
> gives corporations like OpenAI a free ride sans accountability.
>
>
>
> Subhashish
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2023, 4:41 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> I'm not so sure Getty's got a case, though. If the images are on the Web,
> is using them to train an AI something copyright would cover? That to me
> seems more equivalent to just looking at the images, and there's no
> copyright problem in going to Getty's site and just looking at a bunch of
> their pictures.
>
>
>
> But it will be interesting to see how that one shakes out.
>
>
>
> Todd
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 11:47 AM Subhashish  wrote:
>
> Not citing sources is probably a conscious design choice, as citing
> sources would mean sharing the sources used to train the language models.
> Getty has just sued Stability AI, alleging the use of 12 million
> photographs without permission or compensation. Imagine if Stability had to
> purchase from Getty through a legal process. For starters, Getty might not
> have agreed in the first place. Bulk-scaping publicly visible text in
> text-based AIs like ChatGPT would mean scraping text with copyright. But
> even reusing CC BY-SA content would require attribution. None of the AI
> platforms attributes their sources because they did not acquire content in
> legal and ethical ways [1]. Large language models won't be large and
> releases won't happen fast if they actually start acquiring content
> gradually from trustworthy sources. It took so many years for hundreds and
> thousands of Wikimedians to take Wikipedias in different languages to where
> they are for a reason.
>
>
>
> 1. https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/
>
>
> Subhashish
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 1:06 PM Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Peter Southwood]

It would depend on whether it uses the text or the information/data. My guess 
is that the more it uses its own words, the more drift in meaning there will 
be, and the less reliable the result, but I have no way to test this 
hypothesis. 

 Cheers, Peter

 

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 infringement of license.

 

Specifically the CC-by-sa if it uses Wikipedia. In this case the attribution 
must be present.

 

Kind regards

 

On Sun, 5 Feb 2023, 08:12 Peter Southwood,  wrote:

“Not citing sources is probably a conscious design choice, as citing sources 
would mean sharing the sources used to train the language models” This may be a 
choice that comes back to bite them. Without citing their sources, they are 
unreliable as a source for anything one does not know already. Someone will 
have a bad consequence from relying on the information and will sue the 
publisher. It will be interesting to see how they plan to 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 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

 

Just to clarify, my point was not about Getty to begin with. Whether Getty 
would win and whether a big corporation should own such a large amount of 
visual content are questions outside this particular thread. It would certainly 
be interesting to see how things roll.

 

But AI/ML is way more than just looking. Training with large models is a very 
sophisticated and technical process. Data annotation among many other forms of 
labour are done by real people. the article I had linked earlier tells a lot 
about the real world consequences of AI. I'm certain AI/ML, especially when 
we're talking about language models like ChatGPT, are far from innocent 
looking/reading. For starters, derivative of works, except Public Domain ones, 
must attribute the authors. Any provision for attribution is deliberately 
removed from systems like ChatGPT and that only gives corporations like OpenAI 
a free ride sans accountability.

 

Subhashish 

 

 

On Sat, Feb 4, 2023, 4:41 PM Todd Allen  wrote:

I'm not so sure Getty's got a case, though. If the images are on the Web, is 
using them to train an AI something copyright would cover? That to me seems 
more equivalent to just looking at the images, and there's no copyright problem 
in going to Getty's site and just looking at a bunch of their pictures.

 

But it will be interesting to see how that one shakes out.

 

Todd

 

On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 11:47 AM Subhashish  wrote:

Not citing sources is probably a conscious design choice, as citing sources 
would mean sharing the sources used to train the language models. Getty has 
just sued Stability AI, alleging the use of 12 million photographs without 
permission or compensation. Imagine if Stability had to purchase from Getty 
through a legal process. For starters, Getty might not have agreed in the first 
place. Bulk-scaping publicly visible text in text-based AIs like ChatGPT would 
mean scraping text with copyright. But even reusing CC BY-SA content would 
require attribution. None of the AI platforms attributes their sources because 
they did not acquire content in legal and ethical ways [1]. Large language 
models won't be large and releases won't happen fast if they actually start 
acquiring content gradually from trustworthy sources. It took so many years for 
hundreds and thousands of Wikimedians to take Wikipedias in different languages 
to where they are for a reason.

 

1. https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/




Subhashish

 

 

On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 1:06 PM Peter Southwood  
wrote:

>From what I have seen the AIs are not great on citing sources. If they start 
>citing reliable sources, their contributions 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] 
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 
use by sources.  The failing of all new AI is not in its ability but in the 
lack of transparency with that being able to be identified by the readers. We 
have seen people impersonating musicians and writing songs in their style. We 
have also seen pictures that have 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Ilario Valdelli]

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 is not able to describe the different positions. It takes generally
only one.

3rd: disambiguation. Examples like ChatGPT don't process well the
disambiguation. It means that the system has a weak AI. It looks that in
case of disambiguation, it takes only one meaning.

4th: neutral point of view. Examples like ChatGPT don't give a neutral
answer. Frequently they are trained to take a specific answer.

However I personally consider that investigate in AI makes sense because AI
is doing a lot of progress and Wikimedia projects can benefit.

But ChatGPT is a bad example for Wikimedia projects.

Kind regards

On Fri, 30 Dec 2022, 01:09 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?
>
> 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/QVRH5GBHLHHAIPNLLMKQGEEROM3VKNKF/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Ilario Valdelli]

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.

Kind regards

On Sun, 5 Feb 2023, 08:12 Peter Southwood, 
wrote:

> “Not citing sources is probably a conscious design choice, as citing
> sources would mean sharing the sources used to train the language models”
> This may be a choice that comes back to bite them. Without citing their
> sources, they are unreliable as a source for anything one does not know
> already. Someone will have a bad consequence from relying on the
> information and will sue the publisher. It will be interesting to see how
> they plan to 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 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
>
>
>
> Just to clarify, my point was not about Getty to begin with. Whether Getty
> would win and whether a big corporation should own such a large amount of
> visual content are questions outside this particular thread. It would
> certainly be interesting to see how things roll.
>
>
>
> But AI/ML is way more than just looking. Training with large models is a
> very sophisticated and technical process. Data annotation among many other
> forms of labour are done by real people. the article I had linked earlier
> tells a lot about the real world consequences of AI. I'm certain AI/ML,
> especially when we're talking about language models like ChatGPT, are far
> from innocent looking/reading. For starters, derivative of works, except
> Public Domain ones, must attribute the authors. Any provision for
> attribution is deliberately removed from systems like ChatGPT and that only
> gives corporations like OpenAI a free ride sans accountability.
>
>
>
> Subhashish
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2023, 4:41 PM Todd Allen  wrote:
>
> I'm not so sure Getty's got a case, though. If the images are on the Web,
> is using them to train an AI something copyright would cover? That to me
> seems more equivalent to just looking at the images, and there's no
> copyright problem in going to Getty's site and just looking at a bunch of
> their pictures.
>
>
>
> But it will be interesting to see how that one shakes out.
>
>
>
> Todd
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 11:47 AM Subhashish  wrote:
>
> Not citing sources is probably a conscious design choice, as citing
> sources would mean sharing the sources used to train the language models.
> Getty has just sued Stability AI, alleging the use of 12 million
> photographs without permission or compensation. Imagine if Stability had to
> purchase from Getty through a legal process. For starters, Getty might not
> have agreed in the first place. Bulk-scaping publicly visible text in
> text-based AIs like ChatGPT would mean scraping text with copyright. But
> even reusing CC BY-SA content would require attribution. None of the AI
> platforms attributes their sources because they did not acquire content in
> legal and ethical ways [1]. Large language models won't be large and
> releases won't happen fast if they actually start acquiring content
> gradually from trustworthy sources. It took so many years for hundreds and
> thousands of Wikimedians to take Wikipedias in different languages to where
> they are for a reason.
>
>
>
> 1. https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/
>
>
> Subhashish
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 1:06 PM Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
> From what I have seen the AIs are not great on citing sources. If they
> start citing reliable sources, their contributions 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]
> *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 use by sources.  The failing of all new AI is not in its ability but
> in the lack of transparency with that being able to be identified by the
> readers. We have seen people impers

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Peter Southwood]

“Not citing sources is probably a conscious design choice, as citing sources 
would mean sharing the sources used to train the language models” This may be a 
choice that comes back to bite them. Without citing their sources, they are 
unreliable as a source for anything one does not know already. Someone will 
have a bad consequence from relying on the information and will sue the 
publisher. It will be interesting to see how they plan to 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 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

 

Just to clarify, my point was not about Getty to begin with. Whether Getty 
would win and whether a big corporation should own such a large amount of 
visual content are questions outside this particular thread. It would certainly 
be interesting to see how things roll.

 

But AI/ML is way more than just looking. Training with large models is a very 
sophisticated and technical process. Data annotation among many other forms of 
labour are done by real people. the article I had linked earlier tells a lot 
about the real world consequences of AI. I'm certain AI/ML, especially when 
we're talking about language models like ChatGPT, are far from innocent 
looking/reading. For starters, derivative of works, except Public Domain ones, 
must attribute the authors. Any provision for attribution is deliberately 
removed from systems like ChatGPT and that only gives corporations like OpenAI 
a free ride sans accountability.

 

Subhashish 

 

 

On Sat, Feb 4, 2023, 4:41 PM Todd Allen  wrote:

I'm not so sure Getty's got a case, though. If the images are on the Web, is 
using them to train an AI something copyright would cover? That to me seems 
more equivalent to just looking at the images, and there's no copyright problem 
in going to Getty's site and just looking at a bunch of their pictures.

 

But it will be interesting to see how that one shakes out.

 

Todd

 

On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 11:47 AM Subhashish  wrote:

Not citing sources is probably a conscious design choice, as citing sources 
would mean sharing the sources used to train the language models. Getty has 
just sued Stability AI, alleging the use of 12 million photographs without 
permission or compensation. Imagine if Stability had to purchase from Getty 
through a legal process. For starters, Getty might not have agreed in the first 
place. Bulk-scaping publicly visible text in text-based AIs like ChatGPT would 
mean scraping text with copyright. But even reusing CC BY-SA content would 
require attribution. None of the AI platforms attributes their sources because 
they did not acquire content in legal and ethical ways [1]. Large language 
models won't be large and releases won't happen fast if they actually start 
acquiring content gradually from trustworthy sources. It took so many years for 
hundreds and thousands of Wikimedians to take Wikipedias in different languages 
to where they are for a reason.

 

1. https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/




Subhashish

 

 

On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 1:06 PM Peter Southwood  
wrote:

>From what I have seen the AIs are not great on citing sources. If they start 
>citing reliable sources, their contributions 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] 
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 
use by sources.  The failing of all new AI is not in its ability but in the 
lack of transparency with that being able to be identified by the readers. We 
have seen people impersonating musicians and writing songs in their style. We 
have also seen pictures that have been created by copying someone else's work 
yet not acknowledging it as being derivative of any kind.

 

Our big problems will be in ensuring that copyright is respected in legally, 
and not hosting anything that is even remotely dubious 

 

On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 22:24, Adam Sobieski  wrote:

Brainstorming on how to drive traffic to Wikimedia content from conversational 
media, UI/UX designers could provide menu items or buttons on chatbots' 
applications or webpage components (e.g., to read more about the content, to 
navigate to cited resources, to edit the content, to discuss the content, to 
upvote/downvote the content, to share the content or the recent dialo

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Subhashish]

Just to clarify, my point was not about Getty to begin with. Whether Getty
would win and whether a big corporation should own such a large amount of
visual content are questions outside this particular thread. It would
certainly be interesting to see how things roll.

But AI/ML is way more than just looking. Training with large models is a
very sophisticated and technical process. Data annotation among many other
forms of labour are done by real people. the article I had linked earlier
tells a lot about the real world consequences of AI. I'm certain AI/ML,
especially when we're talking about language models like ChatGPT, are far
from innocent looking/reading. For starters, derivative of works, except
Public Domain ones, must attribute the authors. Any provision for
attribution is deliberately removed from systems like ChatGPT and that only
gives corporations like OpenAI a free ride sans accountability.

Subhashish


On Sat, Feb 4, 2023, 4:41 PM Todd Allen  wrote:

> I'm not so sure Getty's got a case, though. If the images are on the Web,
> is using them to train an AI something copyright would cover? That to me
> seems more equivalent to just looking at the images, and there's no
> copyright problem in going to Getty's site and just looking at a bunch of
> their pictures.
>
> But it will be interesting to see how that one shakes out.
>
> Todd
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 11:47 AM Subhashish  wrote:
>
>> Not citing sources is probably a conscious design choice, as citing
>> sources would mean sharing the sources used to train the language models.
>> Getty has just sued Stability AI, alleging the use of 12 million
>> photographs without permission or compensation. Imagine if Stability had to
>> purchase from Getty through a legal process. For starters, Getty might not
>> have agreed in the first place. Bulk-scaping publicly visible text in
>> text-based AIs like ChatGPT would mean scraping text with copyright. But
>> even reusing CC BY-SA content would require attribution. None of the AI
>> platforms attributes their sources because they did not acquire content in
>> legal and ethical ways [1]. Large language models won't be large and
>> releases won't happen fast if they actually start acquiring content
>> gradually from trustworthy sources. It took so many years for hundreds and
>> thousands of Wikimedians to take Wikipedias in different languages to where
>> they are for a reason.
>>
>> 1. https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/
>>
>> Subhashish
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 1:06 PM Peter Southwood <
>> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> From what I have seen the AIs are not great on citing sources. If they
>>> start citing reliable sources, their contributions 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]
>>> *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 use by sources.  The failing of all new AI is not in its
>>> ability but in the lack of transparency with that being able to be
>>> identified by the readers. We have seen people impersonating musicians and
>>> writing songs in their style. We have also seen pictures that have been
>>> created by copying someone else's work yet not acknowledging it as being
>>> derivative of any kind.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Our big problems will be in ensuring that copyright is respected in
>>> legally, and not hosting anything that is even remotely dubious
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 22:24, Adam Sobieski 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Brainstorming on how to drive traffic to Wikimedia content from
>>> conversational media, UI/UX designers could provide menu items or buttons
>>> on chatbots' applications or webpage components (e.g., to read more about
>>> the content, to navigate to cited resources, to edit the content, to
>>> discuss the content, to upvote/downvote the content, to share the content
>>> or the recent dialogue history on social media, to request
>>> review/moderation/curation for the content, etc.). Many of these envisioned
>>>

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Todd Allen]

I'm not so sure Getty's got a case, though. If the images are on the Web,
is using them to train an AI something copyright would cover? That to me
seems more equivalent to just looking at the images, and there's no
copyright problem in going to Getty's site and just looking at a bunch of
their pictures.

But it will be interesting to see how that one shakes out.

Todd

On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 11:47 AM Subhashish  wrote:

> Not citing sources is probably a conscious design choice, as citing
> sources would mean sharing the sources used to train the language models.
> Getty has just sued Stability AI, alleging the use of 12 million
> photographs without permission or compensation. Imagine if Stability had to
> purchase from Getty through a legal process. For starters, Getty might not
> have agreed in the first place. Bulk-scaping publicly visible text in
> text-based AIs like ChatGPT would mean scraping text with copyright. But
> even reusing CC BY-SA content would require attribution. None of the AI
> platforms attributes their sources because they did not acquire content in
> legal and ethical ways [1]. Large language models won't be large and
> releases won't happen fast if they actually start acquiring content
> gradually from trustworthy sources. It took so many years for hundreds and
> thousands of Wikimedians to take Wikipedias in different languages to where
> they are for a reason.
>
> 1. https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/
>
> Subhashish
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 1:06 PM Peter Southwood <
> peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>> From what I have seen the AIs are not great on citing sources. If they
>> start citing reliable sources, their contributions 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]
>> *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 use by sources.  The failing of all new AI is not in its
>> ability but in the lack of transparency with that being able to be
>> identified by the readers. We have seen people impersonating musicians and
>> writing songs in their style. We have also seen pictures that have been
>> created by copying someone else's work yet not acknowledging it as being
>> derivative of any kind.
>>
>>
>>
>> Our big problems will be in ensuring that copyright is respected in
>> legally, and not hosting anything that is even remotely dubious
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 22:24, Adam Sobieski 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Brainstorming on how to drive traffic to Wikimedia content from
>> conversational media, UI/UX designers could provide menu items or buttons
>> on chatbots' applications or webpage components (e.g., to read more about
>> the content, to navigate to cited resources, to edit the content, to
>> discuss the content, to upvote/downvote the content, to share the content
>> or the recent dialogue history on social media, to request
>> review/moderation/curation for the content, etc.). Many of these envisioned
>> menu items or buttons would operate contextually during dialogues, upon the
>> most recent (or otherwise selected) responses provided by the chatbot or
>> upon the recent transcripts. Some of these features could also be made
>> available to end-users via spoken-language commands.
>>
>> At any point during hypertext-based dialogues, end-users would be able to
>> navigate to Wikimedia content. These navigations could utilize either URL
>> query string arguments or HTTP POST. In either case, bulk usage data, e.g.,
>> those dialogue contexts navigated from, could be useful.
>>
>> The capability to perform A/B testing across chatbots’ dialogues, over
>> large populations of end-users, could also be useful. In this way,
>> Wikimedia would be better able to: (1) measure end-user engagement and
>> satisfaction, (2) measure the quality of provided content, (3) perform
>> personalization, (4) retain readers and editors. A/B testing could be
>> performed by providing end-users with various feedback buttons (as
>> described above). A/B testing data could also be obtained through data
>> mining, analyzing end-users’ behaviors, response times, responses, and
>> dialogue moves. These data could be provided for 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Subhashish]

Not citing sources is probably a conscious design choice, as citing sources
would mean sharing the sources used to train the language models. Getty has
just sued Stability AI, alleging the use of 12 million photographs without
permission or compensation. Imagine if Stability had to purchase from Getty
through a legal process. For starters, Getty might not have agreed in the
first place. Bulk-scaping publicly visible text in text-based AIs like
ChatGPT would mean scraping text with copyright. But even reusing CC BY-SA
content would require attribution. None of the AI platforms attributes
their sources because they did not acquire content in legal and ethical
ways [1]. Large language models won't be large and releases won't happen
fast if they actually start acquiring content gradually from
trustworthy sources. It took so many years for hundreds and thousands of
Wikimedians to take Wikipedias in different languages to where they are for
a reason.

1. https://time.com/6247678/openai-chatgpt-kenya-workers/

Subhashish


On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 1:06 PM Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> From what I have seen the AIs are not great on citing sources. If they
> start citing reliable sources, their contributions 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]
> *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 use by sources.  The failing of all new AI is not in its ability but
> in the lack of transparency with that being able to be identified by the
> readers. We have seen people impersonating musicians and writing songs in
> their style. We have also seen pictures that have been created by copying
> someone else's work yet not acknowledging it as being derivative of any
> kind.
>
>
>
> Our big problems will be in ensuring that copyright is respected in
> legally, and not hosting anything that is even remotely dubious
>
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 22:24, Adam Sobieski 
> wrote:
>
> Brainstorming on how to drive traffic to Wikimedia content from
> conversational media, UI/UX designers could provide menu items or buttons
> on chatbots' applications or webpage components (e.g., to read more about
> the content, to navigate to cited resources, to edit the content, to
> discuss the content, to upvote/downvote the content, to share the content
> or the recent dialogue history on social media, to request
> review/moderation/curation for the content, etc.). Many of these envisioned
> menu items or buttons would operate contextually during dialogues, upon the
> most recent (or otherwise selected) responses provided by the chatbot or
> upon the recent transcripts. Some of these features could also be made
> available to end-users via spoken-language commands.
>
> At any point during hypertext-based dialogues, end-users would be able to
> navigate to Wikimedia content. These navigations could utilize either URL
> query string arguments or HTTP POST. In either case, bulk usage data, e.g.,
> those dialogue contexts navigated from, could be useful.
>
> The capability to perform A/B testing across chatbots’ dialogues, over
> large populations of end-users, could also be useful. In this way,
> Wikimedia would be better able to: (1) measure end-user engagement and
> satisfaction, (2) measure the quality of provided content, (3) perform
> personalization, (4) retain readers and editors. A/B testing could be
> performed by providing end-users with various feedback buttons (as
> described above). A/B testing data could also be obtained through data
> mining, analyzing end-users’ behaviors, response times, responses, and
> dialogue moves. These data could be provided for the community at special
> pages and could be made available per article, possibly by enhancing the
> “Page information” system. One can also envision these kinds of analytics
> data existing 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] Re: Chat GPT
>
>
>
> Hi Christophe,
>
>
>
> I had not thought about the threat to Wikipedia traffic from Chat GPT but
> you have a good point. The success of the projects is always one step away
> from the next big disruption. So the WMF as the tech provider for the

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Peter Southwood]

>From what I have seen the AIs are not great on citing sources. If they start 
>citing reliable sources, their contributions 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] 
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 
use by sources.  The failing of all new AI is not in its ability but in the 
lack of transparency with that being able to be identified by the readers. We 
have seen people impersonating musicians and writing songs in their style. We 
have also seen pictures that have been created by copying someone else's work 
yet not acknowledging it as being derivative of any kind.

 

Our big problems will be in ensuring that copyright is respected in legally, 
and not hosting anything that is even remotely dubious 

 

On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 22:24, Adam Sobieski  wrote:

Brainstorming on how to drive traffic to Wikimedia content from conversational 
media, UI/UX designers could provide menu items or buttons on chatbots' 
applications or webpage components (e.g., to read more about the content, to 
navigate to cited resources, to edit the content, to discuss the content, to 
upvote/downvote the content, to share the content or the recent dialogue 
history on social media, to request review/moderation/curation for the content, 
etc.). Many of these envisioned menu items or buttons would operate 
contextually during dialogues, upon the most recent (or otherwise selected) 
responses provided by the chatbot or upon the recent transcripts. Some of these 
features could also be made available to end-users via spoken-language commands.

At any point during hypertext-based dialogues, end-users would be able to 
navigate to Wikimedia content. These navigations could utilize either URL query 
string arguments or HTTP POST. In either case, bulk usage data, e.g., those 
dialogue contexts navigated from, could be useful. 

The capability to perform A/B testing across chatbots’ dialogues, over large 
populations of end-users, could also be useful. In this way, Wikimedia would be 
better able to: (1) measure end-user engagement and satisfaction, (2) measure 
the quality of provided content, (3) perform personalization, (4) retain 
readers and editors. A/B testing could be performed by providing end-users with 
various feedback buttons (as described above). A/B testing data could also be 
obtained through data mining, analyzing end-users’ behaviors, response times, 
responses, and dialogue moves. These data could be provided for the community 
at special pages and could be made available per article, possibly by enhancing 
the “Page information” system. One can also envision these kinds of analytics 
data existing 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] Re: Chat GPT 

 

Hi Christophe, 

 

I had not thought about the threat to Wikipedia traffic from Chat GPT but you 
have a good point. The success of the projects is always one step away from the 
next big disruption. So the WMF as the tech provider for the mission (because 
first and foremost in my view that?s what the WMF is - as well as the financial 
engine of the movement of course) needs to pay attention and experiment to 
maintain the long term viability of the mission. In fact I think the cluster of 
our projects offers compelling options. For example to your point below on data 
sets, we have the amazing Wikidata as well the excellent work on abstract 
Wikipedia. We have Wikipedia Enterprise which has built some avenues of 
collaboration with big tech. A bold vision is needed to bring all of it 
together and build an MVP for the community to experiment with.

Best regards, 

 

Victoria Coleman





On Feb 4, 2023, at 4:14 AM, Christophe Henner  
wrote:

?Hi, 

 

On the product side, NLP based AI biggest concern to me is that it would 
drastically decrease traffic to our websites/apps. Which means less new editors 
ans less donations. 

 

So first from a strictly positioning perspective, we have here a major change 
that needs to be managed.

 

And to be honest, it will come faster than we think. We are perfectionists, I 
can assure you, most companies would be happy to launch a search product with a 
80% confidence in answers quality.

 

>From a financial perspective, large industrial investment like this are 
>usually a pool of money you can draw from in x years. You can expect they did 
>not draw all of it yet.

 

Second, GPT 3 and ChatGPT are far from being the most expensive products they 
have.

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Mustafa Kabir]

mk0705...@gmail.com

On Sat, Feb 4, 2023, 8:24 PM Adam Sobieski  wrote:

> Brainstorming on how to drive traffic to Wikimedia content from
> conversational media, UI/UX designers could provide menu items or buttons
> on chatbots' applications or webpage components (e.g., to read more about
> the content, to navigate to cited resources, to edit the content, to
> discuss the content, to upvote/downvote the content, to share the content
> or the recent dialogue history on social media, to request
> review/moderation/curation for the content, etc.). Many of these
> envisioned menu items or buttons would operate contextually during
> dialogues, upon the most recent (or otherwise selected) responses provided
> by the chatbot or upon the recent transcripts. Some of these features
> could also be made available to end-users via spoken-language commands.
>
> At any point during hypertext-based dialogues, end-users would be able to
> navigate to Wikimedia content. These navigations could utilize either URL
> query string arguments or HTTP POST. In either case, bulk usage data, e.g.,
> those dialogue contexts navigated from, could be useful.
>
> The capability to perform A/B testing across chatbots’ dialogues, over
> large populations of end-users, could also be useful. In this way,
> Wikimedia would be better able to: (1) measure end-user engagement and
> satisfaction, (2) measure the quality of provided content, (3) perform
> personalization, (4) retain readers and editors. A/B testing could be
> performed by providing end-users with various feedback buttons (as
> described above). A/B testing data could also be obtained through data
> mining, analyzing end-users’ behaviors, response times, responses, and
> dialogue moves. These data could be provided for the community at special
> pages and could be made available per article, possibly by enhancing the
> “Page information” system. One can also envision these kinds of analytics
> data existing 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] Re: Chat GPT
>
> Hi Christophe,
>
> I had not thought about the threat to Wikipedia traffic from Chat GPT but
> you have a good point. The success of the projects is always one step away
> from the next big disruption. So the WMF as the tech provider for the
> mission (because first and foremost in my view that?s what the WMF is - as
> well as the financial engine of the movement of course) needs to pay
> attention and experiment to maintain the long term viability of the
> mission. In fact I think the cluster of our projects offers compelling
> options. For example to your point below on data sets, we have the amazing
> Wikidata as well the excellent work on abstract Wikipedia. We have
> Wikipedia Enterprise which has built some avenues of collaboration with big
> tech. A bold vision is needed to bring all of it together and build an MVP
> for the community to experiment with.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Victoria Coleman
>
> On Feb 4, 2023, at 4:14 AM, Christophe Henner 
> wrote:
>
> ?Hi,
>
> On the product side, NLP based AI biggest concern to me is that it would
> drastically decrease traffic to our websites/apps. Which means less new
> editors ans less donations.
>
> So first from a strictly positioning perspective, we have here a major
> change that needs to be managed.
>
> And to be honest, it will come faster than we think. We are
> perfectionists, I can assure you, most companies would be happy to launch a
> search product with a 80% confidence in answers quality.
>
> From a financial perspective, large industrial investment like this are
> usually a pool of money you can draw from in x years. You can expect they
> did not draw all of it yet.
>
> Second, GPT 3 and ChatGPT are far from being the most expensive products
> they have. On top of people you need:
> * datasets
> * people to tag the dataset
> * people to correct the algo
> * computing power
>
> I simplify here, but we already have the capacity to muster some of that,
> which drastically lowers our costs :)
>
> I would not discard the option of the movement doing it so easily. That
> being said, it would mean a new project with the need of substantial
> ressources.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 4, 2023, at 9:30 AM, Adam Sobieski 
> wrote:
>
> ?
> With respect to cloud computing costs, these being a significant component
> of the costs to train and operate modern AI systems, as a non-profit
> organization, the Wikimedia Foundation might

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Kimmo Virtanen]

ties, an NRC has the
>> potential not only to unleash a string of advancements in AI, but to help
>> ensure the U.S. maintains its leadership and competitiveness on the global
>> stage.
>>
>> "Throughout 2020, Stanford HAI led efforts with 22 top computer science
>> universities along with a bipartisan, bicameral group of lawmakers
>> proposing legislation to bring the NRC to fruition. On January 1, 2021, the
>> U.S. Congress authorized the National AI Research Resource Task Force Act
>> as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.
>> This law requires that a federal task force be established to study and
>> provide an implementation pathway to create world-class computational
>> resources and robust government datasets for researchers across the country
>> in the form of a National Research Cloud. The task force will issue a final
>> report to the President and Congress next year.
>>
>> "The promise of an NRC is to democratize AI research, education, and
>> innovation, making it accessible to all colleges and universities across
>> the country. Without a National Research Cloud, all but the most elite
>> universities risk losing the 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-releases-final-report/
>> [2]
>> https://www.ai.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/NAIRR-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  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 previous funding, which seems likely, their operational costs are in
>> the ballpark of $300 million per year. The idea that the WMF could just
>> choose to create conversational software of a similar quality if it wanted
>> seems detached from reality to me.
>>
>>
>> Without spending billions on LLM development to aim for a
>> conversational chatbot trying to pass a Turing test, we could definitely
>> try to catch up to the state of the art in search results. Our search
>> currently does a pretty bad job (in terms of recall especially). Today's
>> featured article in English is the Hot Chip album "Made in the Dark", and
>> if I enter anything but the exact article title the typeahead results are
>> woefully incomplete or wrong. If I ask an actual question, good luck.
>>
>> Google is feeling vulnerable to OpenAI here in part because everyone can
>> see that their results are often full of low quality junk created for SEO,
>> while ChatGPT just gives a concise answer right there.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Menu_(2022_film) is one of the top
>> viewed English articles. If I search "The Menu reviews" the Google results
>> are noisy and not so great. ChatGPT actually gives you nothing relevant
>> because it doesn't know anything from 2022. If we could just manage to
>> display the three sentence snippet of our article about the critical
>> response section of the article, it would be awesome. It's too bad that the
>> whole "knowledge engine" debacle poisoned the well when it comes to a
>> Wikipedia search engine, because we could definitely do a lot to learn from
>> what people like about ChatGPT and apply to Wikipedia search.
>>
>> ___
>> 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/6OBPB7WNHKJQXXIBCK73SDXLE3DMGNMY/
>> 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://lis

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Mustafa Kabir]

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
>> Microsoft (undisclosed but rumored to be $10B). Assuming they spent most of
>> their previous funding, which seems likely, their operational costs are in
>> the ballpark of $300 million per year. The idea that the WMF could just
>> choose to create conversational software of a similar quality if it wanted
>> seems detached from reality to me.
>>
>
> Without spending billions on LLM development to aim for a
> conversational chatbot trying to pass a Turing test, we could definitely
> try to catch up to the state of the art in search results. Our search
> currently does a pretty bad job (in terms of recall especially). Today's
> featured article in English is the Hot Chip album "Made in the Dark", and
> if I enter anything but the exact article title the typeahead results are
> woefully incomplete or wrong. If I ask an actual question, good luck.
>
> Google is feeling vulnerable to OpenAI here in part because everyone can
> see that their results are often full of low quality junk created for SEO,
> while ChatGPT just gives a concise answer right there.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Menu_(2022_film) is one of the top
> viewed English articles. If I search "The Menu reviews" the Google results
> are noisy and not so great. ChatGPT actually gives you nothing relevant
> because it doesn't know anything from 2022. If we could just manage to
> display the three sentence snippet of our article about the critical
> response section of the article, it would be awesome. It's too bad that the
> whole "knowledge engine" debacle poisoned the well when it comes to a
> Wikipedia search engine, because we could definitely do a lot to learn from
> what people like about ChatGPT and apply to Wikipedia search.
>
> ___
>> 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/6OBPB7WNHKJQXXIBCK73SDXLE3DMGNMY/
>> 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/2O5USM4UIGYO6Y4LAD26SGM5AFMHYQFP/
> 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/PR2KF3Z5OGNGKVGAYXYBTK2R6PY3WNEN/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Gnangarra]

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 new AI is not in its ability but
in the lack of transparency with that being able to be identified by the
readers. We have seen people impersonating musicians and writing songs in
their style. We have also seen pictures that have been created by copying
someone else's work yet not acknowledging it as being derivative of any
kind.

Our big problems will be in ensuring that copyright is respected in
legally, and not hosting anything that is even remotely dubious

On Sat, 4 Feb 2023 at 22:24, Adam Sobieski  wrote:

> Brainstorming on how to drive traffic to Wikimedia content from
> conversational media, UI/UX designers could provide menu items or buttons
> on chatbots' applications or webpage components (e.g., to read more about
> the content, to navigate to cited resources, to edit the content, to
> discuss the content, to upvote/downvote the content, to share the content
> or the recent dialogue history on social media, to request
> review/moderation/curation for the content, etc.). Many of these
> envisioned menu items or buttons would operate contextually during
> dialogues, upon the most recent (or otherwise selected) responses provided
> by the chatbot or upon the recent transcripts. Some of these features
> could also be made available to end-users via spoken-language commands.
>
> At any point during hypertext-based dialogues, end-users would be able to
> navigate to Wikimedia content. These navigations could utilize either URL
> query string arguments or HTTP POST. In either case, bulk usage data, e.g.,
> those dialogue contexts navigated from, could be useful.
>
> The capability to perform A/B testing across chatbots’ dialogues, over
> large populations of end-users, could also be useful. In this way,
> Wikimedia would be better able to: (1) measure end-user engagement and
> satisfaction, (2) measure the quality of provided content, (3) perform
> personalization, (4) retain readers and editors. A/B testing could be
> performed by providing end-users with various feedback buttons (as
> described above). A/B testing data could also be obtained through data
> mining, analyzing end-users’ behaviors, response times, responses, and
> dialogue moves. These data could be provided for the community at special
> pages and could be made available per article, possibly by enhancing the
> “Page information” system. One can also envision these kinds of analytics
> data existing 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] Re: Chat GPT
>
> Hi Christophe,
>
> I had not thought about the threat to Wikipedia traffic from Chat GPT but
> you have a good point. The success of the projects is always one step away
> from the next big disruption. So the WMF as the tech provider for the
> mission (because first and foremost in my view that?s what the WMF is - as
> well as the financial engine of the movement of course) needs to pay
> attention and experiment to maintain the long term viability of the
> mission. In fact I think the cluster of our projects offers compelling
> options. For example to your point below on data sets, we have the amazing
> Wikidata as well the excellent work on abstract Wikipedia. We have
> Wikipedia Enterprise which has built some avenues of collaboration with big
> tech. A bold vision is needed to bring all of it together and build an MVP
> for the community to experiment with.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Victoria Coleman
>
> On Feb 4, 2023, at 4:14 AM, Christophe Henner 
> wrote:
>
> ?Hi,
>
> On the product side, NLP based AI biggest concern to me is that it would
> drastically decrease traffic to our websites/apps. Which means less new
> editors ans less donations.
>
> So first from a strictly positioning perspective, we have here a major
> change that needs to be managed.
>
> And to be honest, it will come faster than we think. We are
> perfectionists, I can assure you, most companies would be happy to launch a
> search product with a 80% confidence in answers quality.
>
> From a financial perspective, large industrial investment like this are
> usually a pool of money you can draw from in x years. You can expect they
> did not draw all of it yet.
>
> Second, GPT 3 and ChatGPT are far from being the most expensive products
> they have. On top of people you need:
> * datasets
> * people to tag the dataset
> * people to correct the

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Adam Sobieski]

Brainstorming on how to drive traffic to Wikimedia content from conversational 
media, UI/UX designers could provide menu items or buttons on chatbots' 
applications or webpage components (e.g., to read more about the content, to 
navigate to cited resources, to edit the content, to discuss the content, to 
upvote/downvote the content, to share the content or the recent dialogue 
history on social media, to request review/moderation/curation for the content, 
etc.). Many of these envisioned menu items or buttons would operate 
contextually during dialogues, upon the most recent (or otherwise selected) 
responses provided by the chatbot or upon the recent transcripts. Some of these 
features could also be made available to end-users via spoken-language commands.

At any point during hypertext-based dialogues, end-users would be able to 
navigate to Wikimedia content. These navigations could utilize either URL query 
string arguments or HTTP POST. In either case, bulk usage data, e.g., those 
dialogue contexts navigated from, could be useful.

The capability to perform A/B testing across chatbots’ dialogues, over large 
populations of end-users, could also be useful. In this way, Wikimedia would be 
better able to: (1) measure end-user engagement and satisfaction, (2) measure 
the quality of provided content, (3) perform personalization, (4) retain 
readers and editors. A/B testing could be performed by providing end-users with 
various feedback buttons (as described above). A/B testing data could also be 
obtained through data mining, analyzing end-users’ behaviors, response times, 
responses, and dialogue moves. These data could be provided for the community 
at special pages and could be made available per article, possibly by enhancing 
the “Page information” system. One can also envision these kinds of analytics 
data existing 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] Re: Chat GPT

Hi Christophe,

I had not thought about the threat to Wikipedia traffic from Chat GPT but you 
have a good point. The success of the projects is always one step away from the 
next big disruption. So the WMF as the tech provider for the mission (because 
first and foremost in my view that?s what the WMF is - as well as the financial 
engine of the movement of course) needs to pay attention and experiment to 
maintain the long term viability of the mission. In fact I think the cluster of 
our projects offers compelling options. For example to your point below on data 
sets, we have the amazing Wikidata as well the excellent work on abstract 
Wikipedia. We have Wikipedia Enterprise which has built some avenues of 
collaboration with big tech. A bold vision is needed to bring all of it 
together and build an MVP for the community to experiment with.

Best regards,

Victoria Coleman

On Feb 4, 2023, at 4:14 AM, Christophe Henner  
wrote:

?Hi,

On the product side, NLP based AI biggest concern to me is that it would 
drastically decrease traffic to our websites/apps. Which means less new editors 
ans less donations.

So first from a strictly positioning perspective, we have here a major change 
that needs to be managed.

And to be honest, it will come faster than we think. We are perfectionists, I 
can assure you, most companies would be happy to launch a search product with a 
80% confidence in answers quality.

>From a financial perspective, large industrial investment like this are 
>usually a pool of money you can draw from in x years. You can expect they did 
>not draw all of it yet.

Second, GPT 3 and ChatGPT are far from being the most expensive products they 
have. On top of people you need:
* datasets
* people to tag the dataset
* people to correct the algo
* computing power

I simplify here, but we already have the capacity to muster some of that, which 
drastically lowers our costs :)

I would not discard the option of the movement doing it so easily. That being 
said, it would mean a new project with the need of substantial ressources.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 4, 2023, at 9:30 AM, Adam Sobieski  wrote:

?
With respect to cloud computing costs, these being a significant component of 
the costs to train and operate modern AI systems, as a non-profit organization, 
the Wikimedia Foundation might be interested in the National Research Cloud 
(NRC) policy proposal: https://hai.stanford.edu/policy/national-research-cloud .

"Artificial intelligence requires vast amounts of computing power, data, and 
expertise to train and deploy the massive machine learning models behind the 
most advanced research. But access is increasingly out of reach for most 
colleges and universities. A National Research Cloud (NRC) would provide 
academic and non-profit researchers with the compute power and government 
datasets needed

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Victoria Coleman]

Hi Christophe,I had not thought about the threat to Wikipedia traffic from Chat GPT but you have a good point. The success of the projects is always one step away from the next big disruption. So the WMF as the tech provider for the mission (because first and foremost in my view that?s what the WMF is - as well as the financial engine of the movement of course) needs to pay attention and experiment to maintain the long term viability of the mission. In fact I think the cluster of our projects offers compelling options. For example to your point below on data sets, we have the amazing Wikidata as well the excellent work on abstract Wikipedia. We have Wikipedia Enterprise which has built some avenues of collaboration with big tech. A bold vision is needed to bring all of it together and build an MVP for the community to experiment with.Best r
 egards,Victoria ColemanOn Feb 4, 2023, at 4:14 AM, Christophe Henner  wrote:?Hi,On the product side, NLP based AI biggest concern to me is that it would drastically decrease traffic to our websites/apps. Which means less new editors ans less donations. So first from a strictly positioning perspective, we have here a major change that needs to be managed.And to be honest, it will come faster than we think. We are perfectionists, I can assure you, most companies would be happy to launch a search product with a 80% confidence in answers quality.From a financial perspective, large industrial investment like this are usually a pool of money you can
  draw from in x years. You can expect they did not draw all of it yet.Second, GPT 3 and ChatGPT are far from being the most expensive products they have. On top of people you need:* datasets * people to tag the dataset * people to correct the algo* computing powerI simplify here, but we already have the capacity to muster some of that, which drastically lowers our costs :) I would not discard the option of the movement doing it so easily. That being said, it would mean a new project with the need of substantial ressources. Sent from my iPhoneOn Feb 4, 2023, at 9:30 AM, Adam Sobieski  wrote:?






With respect to cloud computing costs, these being a significant component of the costs to train and operate modern AI systems, as a non-profit
 organization, the Wikimedia Foundation might be interested in the National Research Cloud (NRC) policy proposal: https://hai.stanford.edu/policy/national-research-cloud .






"Artificial intelligence requires vast amounts of computing power, data, and expertise to train and deploy the massive machine learning models behind the most advanced research. But access is increasingly out of reach for most
 colleges and universities. A National Research Cloud (NRC) would provide academic and
non-profit researchers with the compute power and government datasets needed for education and research. By democratizing access and equity for all colleges and universities,
 an NRC has the potential not only to unleash a string of advancements in AI, but to help ensure the U.S. maintains its leadership and competitiveness on the global stage.



"Throughout 2020, Stanford HAI led efforts with 22 top computer science universities along with a bipartisan, bicameral group of lawmakers proposing legislation to bring the NRC to fruition.
 On January 1, 2021, the U.S. Congress authorized the National AI Research Resource Task Force Act as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. This law requires that a federal task force be established to study and provide an implementation
 pathway to create world-class computational resources and robust government datasets for researchers across the country in the form of a National Research Cloud. The task force will issue a final report to the President and Congress next year.





"The promise of an NRC is to democratize AI research, education, and innovation, making it accessible to all colleges and universities across the country. Without a National Research Cloud, all but the most elite universities
 risk losing the 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-releases-final-report/

[2] https://www.ai.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/NAIRR-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 <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 rumored to be $10B). Assuming they spent most of their previous funding,
 which seems likely, their operational costs are in the ballpark of $300 million per year. The id

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Christophe Henner]

Hi,On the product side, NLP based AI biggest concern to me is that it would drastically decrease traffic to our websites/apps. Which means less new editors ans less donations. So first from a strictly positioning perspective, we have here a major change that needs to be managed.And to be honest, it will come faster than we think. We are perfectionists, I can assure you, most companies would be happy to launch a search product with a 80% confidence in answers quality.From a financial perspective, large industrial investment like this are usually a pool of money you can draw from in x years. You can expect they did not draw all of it yet.Second, GPT 3 and ChatGPT are far from being the most expensive products they have. On top of people you need:*
  datasets * people to tag the dataset * people to correct the algo* computing powerI simplify here, but we already have the capacity to muster some of that, which drastically lowers our costs :) I would not discard the option of the movement doing it so easily. That being said, it would mean a new project with the need of substantial ressources. Sent from my iPhoneOn Feb 4, 2023, at 9:30 AM, Adam Sobieski  wrote:?






With respect to cloud computing costs, these being a significant component of the costs to train and operate modern AI systems, as a non-profit
 organization, the Wikimedia Foundation might be interested in the National Research Cloud (NRC) policy proposal: https://hai.stanford.edu/policy/national-research-cloud .






"Artificial intelligence requires vast amounts of computing power, data, and expertise to train and deploy the massive machine learning models behind the most advanced research. But access is increasingly out of reach for most
 colleges and universities. A National Research Cloud (NRC) would provide academic and
non-profit researchers with the compute power and government datasets needed for education and research. By democratizing access and equity for all colleges and universities,
 an NRC has the potential not only to unleash a string of advancements in AI, but to help ensure the U.S. maintains its leadership and competitiveness on the global stage.



"Throughout 2020, Stanford HAI led efforts with 22 top computer science universities along with a bipartisan, bicameral group of lawmakers proposing legislation to bring the NRC to fruition.
 On January 1, 2021, the U.S. Congress authorized the National AI Research Resource Task Force Act as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. This law requires that a federal task force be established to study and provide an implementation
 pathway to create world-class computational resources and robust government datasets for researchers across the country in the form of a National Research Cloud. The task force will issue a final report to the President and Congress next year.





"The promise of an NRC is to democratize AI research, education, and innovation, making it accessible to all colleges and universities across the country. Without a National Research Cloud, all but the most elite universities
 risk losing the 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-releases-final-report/

[2] https://www.ai.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/NAIRR-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 <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 rumored to be $10B). Assuming they spent most of their previous funding,
 which seems likely, their operational costs are in the ballpark of $300 million per year. The idea that the WMF could just choose to create conversational software of a similar quality if it wanted seems detached from reality to me.



Without spending billions on LLM development to aim for a conversational chatbot trying to pass a Turing test, we could definitely try to catch up to the state of the art in search results. Our search currently does a pretty bad job (in terms of recall
 especially). Today's featured article in English is the Hot Chip album "Made in the Dark", and if I enter anything but the exact article title the typeahead results are woefully incomplete or wrong. If I ask an actual question, good luck. 


Google is feeling vulnerable to OpenAI here in part because everyone can see that their results are often full of low quality junk created for SEO, while ChatGPT just gives a concise answer right there. 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Menu_(2022_film) is one of the top viewed Eng

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Adam Sobieski]

With respect to cloud computing costs, these being a significant component of 
the costs to train and operate modern AI systems, as a non-profit organization, 
the Wikimedia Foundation might be interested in the National Research Cloud 
(NRC) policy proposal: https://hai.stanford.edu/policy/national-research-cloud .

"Artificial intelligence requires vast amounts of computing power, data, and 
expertise to train and deploy the massive machine learning models behind the 
most advanced research. But access is increasingly out of reach for most 
colleges and universities. A National Research Cloud (NRC) would provide 
academic and non-profit researchers with the compute power and government 
datasets needed for education and research. By democratizing access and equity 
for all colleges and universities, an NRC has the potential not only to unleash 
a string of advancements in AI, but to help ensure the U.S. maintains its 
leadership and competitiveness on the global stage.

"Throughout 2020, Stanford HAI led efforts with 22 top computer science 
universities along with a bipartisan, bicameral group of lawmakers proposing 
legislation to bring the NRC to fruition. On January 1, 2021, the U.S. Congress 
authorized the National AI Research Resource Task Force Act as part of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. This law requires that 
a federal task force be established to study and provide an implementation 
pathway to create world-class computational resources and robust government 
datasets for researchers across the country in the form of a National Research 
Cloud. The task force will issue a final report to the President and Congress 
next year.

"The promise of an NRC is to democratize AI research, education, and 
innovation, making it accessible to all colleges and universities across the 
country. Without a National Research Cloud, all but the most elite universities 
risk losing the 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-releases-final-report/
[2] https://www.ai.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/NAIRR-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 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 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 in the 
ballpark of $300 million per year. The idea that the WMF could just choose to 
create conversational software of a similar quality if it wanted seems detached 
from reality to me.

Without spending billions on LLM development to aim for a conversational 
chatbot trying to pass a Turing test, we could definitely try to catch up to 
the state of the art in search results. Our search currently does a pretty bad 
job (in terms of recall especially). Today's featured article in English is the 
Hot Chip album "Made in the Dark", and if I enter anything but the exact 
article title the typeahead results are woefully incomplete or wrong. If I ask 
an actual question, good luck.

Google is feeling vulnerable to OpenAI here in part because everyone can see 
that their results are often full of low quality junk created for SEO, while 
ChatGPT just gives a concise answer right there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Menu_(2022_film) is one of the top viewed 
English articles. If I search "The Menu reviews" the Google results are noisy 
and not so great. ChatGPT actually gives you nothing relevant because it 
doesn't know anything from 2022. If we could just manage to display the three 
sentence snippet of our article about the critical response section of the 
article, it would be awesome. It's too bad that the whole "knowledge engine" 
debacle poisoned the well when it comes to a Wikipedia search engine, because 
we could definitely do a lot to learn from what people like about ChatGPT and 
apply to Wikipedia search.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- 
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto: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/6OBPB7WNHKJQXXIBCK73SDXLE3DMGNMY/
To unsubscribe send an email to 
wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org>
___

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Steven Walling]

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 previous funding, which seems likely, their operational costs are in
> the ballpark of $300 million per year. The idea that the WMF could just
> choose to create conversational software of a similar quality if it wanted
> seems detached from reality to me.
>

Without spending billions on LLM development to aim for a
conversational chatbot trying to pass a Turing test, we could definitely
try to catch up to the state of the art in search results. Our search
currently does a pretty bad job (in terms of recall especially). Today's
featured article in English is the Hot Chip album "Made in the Dark", and
if I enter anything but the exact article title the typeahead results are
woefully incomplete or wrong. If I ask an actual question, good luck.

Google is feeling vulnerable to OpenAI here in part because everyone can
see that their results are often full of low quality junk created for SEO,
while ChatGPT just gives a concise answer right there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Menu_(2022_film) is one of the top
viewed English articles. If I search "The Menu reviews" the Google results
are noisy and not so great. ChatGPT actually gives you nothing relevant
because it doesn't know anything from 2022. If we could just manage to
display the three sentence snippet of our article about the critical
response section of the article, it would be awesome. It's too bad that the
whole "knowledge engine" debacle poisoned the well when it comes to a
Wikipedia search engine, because we could definitely do a lot to learn from
what people like about ChatGPT and apply to Wikipedia search.

___
> 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/6OBPB7WNHKJQXXIBCK73SDXLE3DMGNMY/
> 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/2O5USM4UIGYO6Y4LAD26SGM5AFMHYQFP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Gergő Tisza]

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 in
the ballpark of $300 million per year. The idea that the WMF could just
choose to create conversational software of a similar quality if it wanted
seems detached from reality to me.
___
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/6OBPB7WNHKJQXXIBCK73SDXLE3DMGNMY/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Adam Sobieski]

Wikimedia Mailing List,


Hello. I just discovered this mailing list thread and am also interested in the 
topics of crowdsourcing and dialogue systems. I support the vision of 
man-machine collaboration and synergy indicated by Victoria Coleman.

With respect to the state of the art, modern dialogue systems include: ChatGPT 
by OpenAI, Sparrow by DeepMind, and TeachMe by AI2. These modern dialogue 
systems can interact with end-users conversationally about knowledge; some can 
cite their sources; and some can learn, on-the-fly, from operators in control 
centers, subject-matter experts, and/or broader crowdsourced communities.

Major search engine providers are, according to news reports, already, or soon 
will be, integrating modern dialogue systems. Will the Wikimedia Search 
Platform be exploring conversational search features?

User experiences for control center operators or for broader communities of 
editors to interact with that knowledge, that content, utilized by large-scale 
dialogue systems could be Wiki-based.

In theory, community dashboards, potentially personalized for each editor, 
could be provided for editors to determine which articles were popular or 
trending in terms of usage by dialogue systems' end-users, or otherwise 
determined to be in potential need of human review, moderation, or curation. 
These and other related approaches to community productivity enhancement could 
be of use for amplifying the performance of and synergy between communities of 
editors and AI systems.

In a recent bibliography [1], I reference some contemporary scholarly and 
scientific publications hoping to point to and to indicate that research is 
underway into how modern dialogue systems could interoperate with, interact 
with, both read from and write to, Wiki 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 to this conversation:

https://www.wired.com/story/large-language-models-artificial-intelligence/

On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 9:32 AM Neurodivergent Netizen 
mailto:idoh.idreamofhor...@gmail.com>> wrote:
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, but 
interest needs to be maintained as well.

From,
I dream of horses
She/her





On Dec 30, 2022, at 8:53 AM, Victoria Coleman 
mailto:vstavridoucole...@gmail.com>> wrote:

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 members with the 
advances offered by AI today. I was struck recently during a visit to NVIDIA 
how language models have changed. Back in my day, we would have to build one 
language model per domain and then load it in to the device, a computer or a 
phone, to  use. Now they have one massive combined language model in a data 
center full of their GPUs which is there so long as you are connected. My sense 
is that within the guard rails offered by our volunteer community, we could use 
AI to force multiply their efforts and make knowledge even more accessible than 
it is today.  Both for those who create and record knowledge as well as those 
who consume it. In the case of Chat GPT, our volunteers could use supervised 
learning for example to narrow down the mistakes the bot makes - which should 
be many fewer that the Open AI version since the Wikipedia version would be 
trained on good, clean Wikipedia content which is constantly reviewed by the 
community.

Best regards,

Victoria Coleman

On Dec 30, 2022, at 12:21 AM, Risker 
mailto:risker...@gmail.com>> wrote:


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 dependent on 
existing resources.  We have seen time and again how easily they can be led 
astray; ChatGPT is just the most recent example.  It is full of misinformation. 
 Other efforts have resulted in the AI becoming radicalized.  Again, it's all 
about what sources the AI project uses in developing its responses, and those 
underlying sources are generally completely unknown to the person asking for 
the information.

Ironically, our volunteers have created software that learns pretty effectively 
(ORES, several anti-vandalism &

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Victoria Coleman]

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 don’t hear the term 
AI engineering or language model engineering but that’s where we need to get to 
if we can ever rely on these things. It’s a bit like combustion. It can cause 
explosions and hurt people. Harnessing it into the internal combustion engine 
has changed transportation for ever. 

Victoria

> On Dec 31, 2022, at 11:06 AM, Raymond Leonard 
>  wrote:
> 
> 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 
> mailto:idoh.idreamofhor...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 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, but 
> interest needs to be maintained as well.
> 
> From,
> I dream of horses
> She/her
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 30, 2022, at 8:53 AM, Victoria Coleman > > wrote:
>> 
>> 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 members with 
>> the advances offered by AI today. I was struck recently during a visit to 
>> NVIDIA how language models have changed. Back in my day, we would have to 
>> build one language model per domain and then load it in to the device, a 
>> computer or a phone, to  use. Now they have one massive combined language 
>> model in a data center full of their GPUs which is there so long as you are 
>> connected. My sense is that within the guard rails offered by our volunteer 
>> community, we could use AI to force multiply their efforts and make 
>> knowledge even more accessible than it is today.  Both for those who create 
>> and record knowledge as well as those who consume it. In the case of Chat 
>> GPT, our volunteers could use supervised learning for example to narrow down 
>> the mistakes the bot makes - which should be many fewer that the Open AI 
>> version since the Wikipedia version would be trained on good, clean 
>> Wikipedia content which is constantly reviewed by the community. 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Victoria Coleman
>> 
>>> On Dec 30, 2022, at 12:21 AM, Risker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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 dependent on existing resources.  We have seen time and again how 
>>> easily they can be led astray; ChatGPT is just the most recent example.  It 
>>> is full of misinformation.  Other efforts have resulted in the AI becoming 
>>> radicalized.  Again, it's all about what sources the AI project uses in 
>>> developing its responses, and those underlying sources are generally 
>>> completely unknown to the person asking for the information.  
>>> 
>>> Ironically, our volunteers have created software that learns pretty 
>>> effectively (ORES, several anti-vandalism "bots").  The tough part is 
>>> ensuring that there is continued, long-term support for these volunteer-led 
>>> efforts, and the ability to make them effective on projects using other 
>>> languages. We've had bots making translations of formulaic articles from 
>>> one language to another for years; again, they depend on volunteers who can 
>>> maintain and support those bots, and ensure continued quality of 
>>> translation. 
>>> 
>>> AI development is tough. It is monumentally expensive. Big players have 
>>> invested billions USD trying to develop working AI, with some of the most 
>>> talented programmers and developers in the world, and they're barely 
>>> scratching the surface.  I don't see this as a priority for the Wikimedia 
>>> movement, which achieves considerably higher quality with volunteers 
>>> following a fairly simple rule set that the volunteers themselves develop 
>>> based on tried and tested knowledge.  Let's let those with lots of money 
>>> keep working to develop something that is useful, and then we can start 
>>> seeing if it can become feasible for our use. 
>>> 
>>>  I envision the AI industry being 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Raymond Leonard]

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 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,
> but interest needs to be maintained as well.
>
> From,
> I dream of horses
> She/her
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 30, 2022, at 8:53 AM, Victoria Coleman 
> wrote:
>
> 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 members with the advances offered by AI today. I was struck
> recently during a visit to NVIDIA how language models have changed. Back in
> my day, we would have to build one language model per domain and then load
> it in to the device, a computer or a phone, to  use. Now they have one
> massive combined language model in a data center full of their GPUs which
> is there so long as you are connected. My sense is that within the guard
> rails offered by our volunteer community, we could use AI to force multiply
> their efforts and make knowledge even more accessible than it is today.
> Both for those who create and record knowledge as well as those who consume
> it. In the case of Chat GPT, our volunteers could use supervised learning
> for example to narrow down the mistakes the bot makes - which should be
> many fewer that the Open AI version since the Wikipedia version would be
> trained on good, clean Wikipedia content which is constantly reviewed by
> the community.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Victoria Coleman
>
> On Dec 30, 2022, at 12:21 AM, Risker  wrote:
>
> 
> 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 dependent on existing resources.  We have seen time and again how
> easily they can be led astray; ChatGPT is just the most recent example.  It
> is full of misinformation.  Other efforts have resulted in the AI becoming
> radicalized.  Again, it's all about what sources the AI project uses in
> developing its responses, and those underlying sources are generally
> completely unknown to the person asking for the information.
>
> Ironically, our volunteers have created software that learns pretty
> effectively (ORES, several anti-vandalism "bots").  The tough part is
> ensuring that there is continued, long-term support for these volunteer-led
> efforts, and the ability to make them effective on projects using other
> languages. We've had bots making translations of formulaic articles from
> one language to another for years; again, they depend on volunteers who can
> maintain and support those bots, and ensure continued quality of
> translation.
>
> AI development is tough. It is monumentally expensive. Big players have
> invested billions USD trying to develop working AI, with some of the most
> talented programmers and developers in the world, and they're barely
> scratching the surface.  I don't see this as a priority for the Wikimedia
> movement, which achieves considerably higher quality with volunteers
> following a fairly simple rule set that the volunteers themselves develop
> based on tried and tested knowledge.  Let's let those with lots of money
> keep working to develop something that is useful, and then we can start
> seeing if it can become feasible for our use.
>
>  I envision the AI industry being similar to the computer hardware
> industry. My first computer cost about the same (in 2022 dollars) as the
> four computers and all their peripherals that I have within my reach as I
> write this, and had less than 1% of the computing power of each of
> them.[1]  The cost will go down once the technology gets better and more
> stable.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> [1] Comparison of 1990 to 2022 dollars.
>
>
>
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 01:40, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>
>> 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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Neurodivergent Netizen]

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, but 
interest needs to be maintained as well.

From,
I dream of horses
She/her





> On Dec 30, 2022, at 8:53 AM, Victoria Coleman  
> wrote:
> 
> 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 members with 
> the advances offered by AI today. I was struck recently during a visit to 
> NVIDIA how language models have changed. Back in my day, we would have to 
> build one language model per domain and then load it in to the device, a 
> computer or a phone, to  use. Now they have one massive combined language 
> model in a data center full of their GPUs which is there so long as you are 
> connected. My sense is that within the guard rails offered by our volunteer 
> community, we could use AI to force multiply their efforts and make knowledge 
> even more accessible than it is today.  Both for those who create and record 
> knowledge as well as those who consume it. In the case of Chat GPT, our 
> volunteers could use supervised learning for example to narrow down the 
> mistakes the bot makes - which should be many fewer that the Open AI version 
> since the Wikipedia version would be trained on good, clean Wikipedia content 
> which is constantly reviewed by the community. 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Victoria Coleman
> 
>> On Dec 30, 2022, at 12:21 AM, Risker  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 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 dependent on existing resources.  We have seen time and again how 
>> easily they can be led astray; ChatGPT is just the most recent example.  It 
>> is full of misinformation.  Other efforts have resulted in the AI becoming 
>> radicalized.  Again, it's all about what sources the AI project uses in 
>> developing its responses, and those underlying sources are generally 
>> completely unknown to the person asking for the information.  
>> 
>> Ironically, our volunteers have created software that learns pretty 
>> effectively (ORES, several anti-vandalism "bots").  The tough part is 
>> ensuring that there is continued, long-term support for these volunteer-led 
>> efforts, and the ability to make them effective on projects using other 
>> languages. We've had bots making translations of formulaic articles from one 
>> language to another for years; again, they depend on volunteers who can 
>> maintain and support those bots, and ensure continued quality of 
>> translation. 
>> 
>> AI development is tough. It is monumentally expensive. Big players have 
>> invested billions USD trying to develop working AI, with some of the most 
>> talented programmers and developers in the world, and they're barely 
>> scratching the surface.  I don't see this as a priority for the Wikimedia 
>> movement, which achieves considerably higher quality with volunteers 
>> following a fairly simple rule set that the volunteers themselves develop 
>> based on tried and tested knowledge.  Let's let those with lots of money 
>> keep working to develop something that is useful, and then we can start 
>> seeing if it can become feasible for our use. 
>> 
>>  I envision the AI industry being similar to the computer hardware industry. 
>> My first computer cost about the same (in 2022 dollars) as the four 
>> computers and all their peripherals that I have within my reach as I write 
>> this, and had less than 1% of the computing power of each of them.[1]  The 
>> cost will go down once the technology gets better and more stable.  
>> 
>> Risker/Anne
>> 
>> [1] Comparison of 1990 to 2022 dollars.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 01:40, Yaroslav Blanter > > wrote:
>>> 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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Victoria Coleman]

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 members with the 
advances offered by AI today. I was struck recently during a visit to NVIDIA 
how language models have changed. Back in my day, we would have to build one 
language model per domain and then load it in to the device, a computer or a 
phone, to  use. Now they have one massive combined language model in a data 
center full of their GPUs which is there so long as you are connected. My sense 
is that within the guard rails offered by our volunteer community, we could use 
AI to force multiply their efforts and make knowledge even more accessible than 
it is today.  Both for those who create and record knowledge as well as those 
who consume it. In the case of Chat GPT, our volunteers could use supervised 
learning for example to narrow down the mistakes the bot makes - which should 
be many fewer that the Open AI version since the Wikipedia version would be 
trained on good, clean Wikipedia content which is constantly reviewed by the 
community. 

Best regards,

Victoria Coleman

> On Dec 30, 2022, at 12:21 AM, Risker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 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 dependent 
> on existing resources.  We have seen time and again how easily they can be 
> led astray; ChatGPT is just the most recent example.  It is full of 
> misinformation.  Other efforts have resulted in the AI becoming radicalized.  
> Again, it's all about what sources the AI project uses in developing its 
> responses, and those underlying sources are generally completely unknown to 
> the person asking for the information.  
> 
> Ironically, our volunteers have created software that learns pretty 
> effectively (ORES, several anti-vandalism "bots").  The tough part is 
> ensuring that there is continued, long-term support for these volunteer-led 
> efforts, and the ability to make them effective on projects using other 
> languages. We've had bots making translations of formulaic articles from one 
> language to another for years; again, they depend on volunteers who can 
> maintain and support those bots, and ensure continued quality of translation. 
> 
> AI development is tough. It is monumentally expensive. Big players have 
> invested billions USD trying to develop working AI, with some of the most 
> talented programmers and developers in the world, and they're barely 
> scratching the surface.  I don't see this as a priority for the Wikimedia 
> movement, which achieves considerably higher quality with volunteers 
> following a fairly simple rule set that the volunteers themselves develop 
> based on tried and tested knowledge.  Let's let those with lots of money keep 
> working to develop something that is useful, and then we can start seeing if 
> it can become feasible for our use. 
> 
>  I envision the AI industry being similar to the computer hardware industry. 
> My first computer cost about the same (in 2022 dollars) as the four computers 
> and all their peripherals that I have within my reach as I write this, and 
> had less than 1% of the computing power of each of them.[1]  The cost will go 
> down once the technology gets better and more stable.  
> 
> Risker/Anne
> 
> [1] Comparison of 1990 to 2022 dollars.
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 01:40, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:
>> 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 
>>>  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 
>>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

[Risker]

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 dependent on existing resources.  We have seen time and again how
easily they can be led astray; ChatGPT is just the most recent example.  It
is full of misinformation.  Other efforts have resulted in the AI becoming
radicalized.  Again, it's all about what sources the AI project uses in
developing its responses, and those underlying sources are generally
completely unknown to the person asking for the information.

Ironically, our volunteers have created software that learns pretty
effectively (ORES, several anti-vandalism "bots").  The tough part is
ensuring that there is continued, long-term support for these volunteer-led
efforts, and the ability to make them effective on projects using other
languages. We've had bots making translations of formulaic articles from
one language to another for years; again, they depend on volunteers who can
maintain and support those bots, and ensure continued quality of
translation.

AI development is tough. It is monumentally expensive. Big players have
invested billions USD trying to develop working AI, with some of the most
talented programmers and developers in the world, and they're barely
scratching the surface.  I don't see this as a priority for the Wikimedia
movement, which achieves considerably higher quality with volunteers
following a fairly simple rule set that the volunteers themselves develop
based on tried and tested knowledge.  Let's let those with lots of money
keep working to develop something that is useful, and then we can start
seeing if it can become feasible for our use.

 I envision the AI industry being similar to the computer hardware
industry. My first computer cost about the same (in 2022 dollars) as the
four computers and all their peripherals that I have within my reach as I
write this, and had less than 1% of the computing power of each of
them.[1]  The cost will go down once the technology gets better and more
stable.

Risker/Anne

[1] Comparison of 1990 to 2022 dollars.



On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 01:40, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> 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 

[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
 

[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

[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

[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

[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