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 <vstavridoucoleman(a)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 <steven.walling(a)gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 4:09 PM Victoria Coleman <
vstavridoucoleman(a)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(a)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…
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l(a)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…
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave(a)lists.wikimedia.org
--
Boodarwun
Gnangarra
'ngany dabakarn koorliny arn boodjera dardoon ngalang Nyungar koortaboodjar'