Content deleted Content added
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 64:
:::: Imho, this page is not the place for Wikipedia editors to debate whether chatbots are more or less likely to hallucinate under this or that circumstance, and, pardon me, but anecdotal evidence about failure to fail in casual use by non-experts is close to worthless. Please use the AI discussion venues for that. Here we should debate whether a find sources module should use the results of AI, however triggered, and imho the answer to that is a slam-dunk 'no'. I will shut up now, and hopefully others will chime in. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 16:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::: Agreed entirely with Mathglot here. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 16:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:Google's top-level "AI overview" results are rarely totally accurate, but they do give the source links, which in aggregate ends up being significantly ''more reliable'' for us than their raw top search results, which, often being shit like quora or low-quality zines, do not provide sources at all.
:I don't know if linking to another engine prompting something like ChatGPT would get better AI-enhanced results than Google or Bing in that respect, since they are putting a good deal of effort into making it give back real online-accessible sources. That seems to align with our goal here.
:Of course the other question is whether it's more enticing for the novice editor to have a shiny link saying "ChatGPT" or whatever latest AI tool is out there, instead of just clicking "Google", even if the result is the same. Also, calling exclusively the Google AI overview results does not appear possible right now as it's still considered an experimental feature, and it doesn't appear to be available in private browsing either. But that's my thought going forward. [[User:SamuelRiv|SamuelRiv]] ([[User talk:SamuelRiv|talk]]) 17:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
<small>'''Listed at:''' [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)]]. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 16:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)</small>
:I think that even if chatbots were 100% accurate in their output, we would still want to avoid using them for use-cases like this because of how heavily these technologies rely on Wikipedia itself as an information source. We need to stay upstream of LLMs to avoid circular referencing. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 16:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Line 71 ⟶ 74:
::::I have largely toyed with ChatGPT and found it is not always good. Web-based LLMs like Copilot and Gemini are a bit better, although I remember they had a bumpy start, sometimes pulling nonsense from places like Reddit and Facebook.
::::I do not agree that we should just copy and paste the exact output of an LLM. I only think AI is good to assist humans, but practically can never replace humans. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 17:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:I think that including AI-oriented links is likely to cause more problems than it solves. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
| |||