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, <vstavridoucoleman@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?
>
> 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 the community and seeing us step to it
> would be very encouraging.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Victoria Coleman
> _______________________________________________
> 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/CYPO3PEMM4FIWPNL6MRTORHZXVTS2VNN/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
>
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, <vstavridoucoleman@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?
>
> 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 the community and seeing us step to it
> would be very encouraging.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Victoria Coleman
> _______________________________________________
> 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/CYPO3PEMM4FIWPNL6MRTORHZXVTS2VNN/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
>