( Apologies, accidentally deleted, content recovered)
From: danboy12342 Mui
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 22:37:01 +0100
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] ChatGPT as a reliable source
I think that there is a difference between "ChatGPT told me the sky is red
and that is my source" and "a reliable source told me the sky was blue and
ChatGPT helped me write about that"
At it's core The GPT models are text generators, trained specifically to
sound as human and reliable as possible in the generated text. Nothing
else. The factual or not factual part is built on top, in ChatGPT's case
the "facts" are put together from whatever it read on the internet.
Something like Palm, Bard or BingGPT have a layer of "facts" built on top
with search functions like looking up your query for you and then
paraphrasing an article it found.
In short; ChatGPT isn't a source,
but you can give it information and ask for a well written article and use
that (although at this point in time reread to make sure it don't throw
anything else in there). So a secondary question is how do we, or de we at
all mention that chatGPT was used to generate the text, assuming the AI
gives you something useable do we cite just the source we gave to the bot
or do we cite the fact the bot read it and then produced a summary or
extracted facts from it. (That of course a human needs to check)
I think notes like "information from source X, ai edited" or "ai
summarized" should be something seriously considered for Wikipedia and
implemented at lot sooner than you think.
-
-- Daniel Mui, (Daniel 生意 梅) (ダニエル・ムイ)
Caution of biases: i have been a part of openAI's beta programs for many
years and have a strong positive bias towards them and the work they do.
I'm a firm believer in AI supplementing every part of human life in the
near future.
As a developer I've become used to assuming everyone as heard of everything
and may come off as ignorant or expect you to know or be familiar with
something you really shouldn't be, i apologize for that.
On Wed, May 17, 2023, 08:08 Kiril Simeonovski
wrote:
> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Two days ago, a participant in one of our edit-a-thons consulted ChatGPT
> when writing an article on the Macedonian Wikipedia that did not exist on
> any other language edition. ChatGPT provided some output, but the problem
> was how to cite it.
>
> The community on the Macedonian Wikipedia has not yet had a discussion on
> this matter and we do not have any guidelines. So, my main questions are
> the following:
>
> * Can ChatGPT be used as a reliable source and, if yes, how would the
> citation look like?
>
> * Are there any ongoing community discussions on introducing guidelines?
>
> My personal opinion is that ChatGPT should be avoided as a reliable
> source, and only the original source where the algorithm gets the
> information from should be used.
>
> Best regards,
> Kiril
> ___
> 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/WMGIBNPN5JNJGUOCLWFCCPD7EL5YN6KU/
> 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/XNCEWQXVL6NWX5FWFPVOTNRLWQC76F6P/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
