Wikipedia talk:Large language models/Archive 7

LLM Experiment - Sources and unsourced information helper
I conducted an experiment to see if LLMs (Chat-GPT4) could identify sourced and unsourced information in a Wikipedia article. The experiment can be viewed step-by-step here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks for sharing your experiment. I think there is some potential in using LLMs to help with verification. One note regarding your experiment: the amount of history of which ChatGPT is aware is limited. This is the case even if you tell it to "Keep track of this source". So as the chat grows longer, it will forget the earlier steps in the exchange, which contain the text of the sources. But it does not tell you this and may attempt to answer your question nonetheless, probably with hallucinations. This issue becomes more serious with very long sources or very many sources. One way to solve this problem is to restrict oneself to the verification of one claim and one source a time and start a new chat for each new claim/source. Another issue is that your process only tells you which sources verify a claim but does not cite the passage that verifies it. So you would have to trust that it is not a hallucination instead of being able to check it for yourself.
 * For a user script that implements a similar idea, see User:Phlsph7/SourceVerificationAIAssistant. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Great work! I did some follow up work with the 32k version of GPT4.  Could fit the texts of all of the RS in and pose a single prompt for find unsupported material.  See User_talk:WeatherWriter/LLM_Experiment_1 for more details. Nowa (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:CHATGPT" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:CHATGPT&redirect=no Wikipedia:CHATGPT] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Information page
Based on the discussion above,, it is clear that this page will not be promoted either to policy or to guideline. However, the RfC didn't really specify what would happen to the page if it isn't promoted. In the absence of such clarity, I am considering swapping out the Proposal template with Information page. (An information page is a kind of project-space page that "intends to describe some aspect(s) of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices", and it doesn't require much consensus for a page to be labelled as such.) Would there be any objection to that? It would be a softer template than something like failed, and I'm not sure if we have enough consensus to use supplement. Mz7 (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I would object because this page doesn't describe any aspect of Wikipedia's norms, customs, etc. I would suggest it be labeled an essay (not a failed proposal), because it conveys the opinion of some editors on an issue relating to Wikipedia, and that's what an essay is. Levivich (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to essay. Mz7 (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅: switched proposal to essay in the absence of objections. The "essay" label doesn't really require much consensus to use, anyway, and as indicated above, it doesn't seem like there is consensus to use a different label for this page. Mz7 (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Essay should be fine. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 12:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would prefer failed proposal to essay as long as the page remains substantially unchanged, since it was drafted as policy, is worded like one, and risks being brought up as semi-authoritative in the same way many essays are. If someone decides to substantially rewrite it into a more typical essay format, no objection to the essay tag being brought back. DFlhb (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I took a first step to make it more essay-like by using less authoritative language. I tried to keep the changes to a minimum: most changes involve replacing expressions like "must" with "should". Phlsph7 (talk) 07:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Paper
Good paper on the topic of LLM assisted writing and the kind of tools we might like to create if there are any software folk here. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.15337.pdf Tal pedia 14:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Copyright on that seems to be 2018, btw. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm... odd the paper says "7 Sep 2023" in the margin and is using gpt-4 (which was released this year). Tal pedia 18:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

AI being used by reliable sources
@ActivelyDisinterested has suggested a list in the Wikipedia: project namespace to collect notes on sources that we have considered reliable in the past, but which seem to be using LLM-generated content. Please see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources if you're interested in this subject and/or would like to help compile the list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Template:OpenAI
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Template:OpenAI. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Template:AI-generated notification
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 December 4 § Template:AI-generated notification. – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)