Content deleted Content added
→Chatbots as valid sources or identifiers of them: A bright future. |
|||
Line 68:
::I wonder if with the right prompt engineering we can get these chatbots to actually spit out reliable sources. We can maybe base our entire prompt based on something like [[WP:RSPS]]. Although it probably would overfill the query parameter. [[User:Awesome Aasim|Awesome]] [[User_talk:Awesome Aasim|Aasim]] 17:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::: Are you proposing to engineer a solution that operates without human intervention? Because if you are successful, you should quit your day job and launch the next AI start-up, or become CTO of one of the existing ones. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 17:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::No, a person will still need to click on and then review what is provided, and provide follow up queries. The queries I pass into the ?q=... parameter may be a good start, but I don't think they are a good end. But us Wikipedians should know this; just as the first page of Google/Bing search results can at times be littered with stuff like [[WP:DAILYFAIL]] and [[WP:NEWSMAX]], depending on the query and depending on previous searches.
::::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)
| |||