Content deleted Content added
→Chatbots as valid sources or identifiers of them: oppose use of AI in this context, even when the technology improves |
|||
Line 63:
:::When a chatbot is powered by a search engine, it is less likely to make stuff up; but that doesn't mean it doesn't pull from unreliable sources. I have tried Copilot before (not necessarily for Wikipedia tasks, but for personal tasks like clarifying math concepts) and it has not really failed me. On the other hand, ChatGPT has occasionally made stuff up, especially when it does not query from the web. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 15:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: 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)
<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)
| |||