(Apologies, accidentally deleted, content recovered)

From: Jimmy Wales jimmywales@wikitribune.com To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Bcc: Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 14:48:06 +0100 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: ChatGPT as a reliable source

On 2023-05-17 19:05, Samuel Klein wrote:

I think any generative tools used to rewrite a section or article, or to produce a sibling version for a different reading-level, or to generate a timeline or other visualization that is then embedded in the article, should all be cited somehow.

While I don't have anything against that, obviously, I'm not really convinced that we need to do this. I suppose it depends on the context.

If a non-native speaker of a language uses a spell checker, we don't ask them to even mention it. If they use a more sophisticated grammar tool to help them with some nuance of that language, we don't ask them to even mention it. If they use an AI tool to evaluate and edit their paragraph for tone? What if they use an AI tool to compare the text they are writing with the source being cited, to see if the AI notices any discrepancies?

I feel that those last two use cases are going to be ubiquitous within a couple of years, possibly even embedded in browsers or browser extensions.

People using generative tools to draft new material should find reliable sources for every claim in that material, much more densely than you would when summarizing a series of sources yourself.

This is definitely true.