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 theĀ  community and seeing us step to it would be very encouraging.

Best regards,

Victoria Coleman
Wikimedia-l mailing list --, guidelines at: and
Public archives at
To unsubscribe send an email to