( Apologies, accidentally deleted, content recovered)

From: danboy12342 Mui danboy12342@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 kiril.simeonovski@gmail.com 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org