Ads
related to: is chatgpt reliable for research presentationpopai.pro has been visited by 10K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
While AI assistants like ChatGPT can provide information to help start the research process, directly using its uncited, unverifiable outputs for Wikipedia articles risks compromising our project's standards of reliability, references, collaborative editing, and ongoing improveability.
The results might come as an unpleasant surprise to Wikipedians and the Wikimedia Foundation, which has consistently sought to present Wikipedia as a more reliable option over LLM-based tools like ChatGPT (see e.g. "In the media" in this Signpost issue:
In more detail, the researchers formalized four groups of research hypotheses about the impact of FlaggedRevs [our bolding]: First, the study assessed whether the "system is indeed functioning as intended", by hypothesizing that it reduces the "number of visible rejected contributions" (i.e. edits that were reverted after being approved, i.e. becoming visible to the general reader), both from ...
Lastly, we need to keep in mind that AI-generated articles (as well as AI capabilities in general) are a moving target, with recent systems getting more reliable at generating Wikipedia-type articles than a simplistic ChatGPT prompt would achieve, see e.g. the previous "Recent research" issue: "Article-writing AI is less 'prone to reasoning ...
Powered by OpenAI’s GPT models, ChatGPT is an AI chatbot with many uses, such as generating different types of content, answering questions, and translating languages.
The authors stop short of attempting to use this difference (between generally larger pageview increases in ChatGPT-less languages and generally smaller increases for those where ChatGPT was available) to quantify the overall effect of ChatGPT directly, perhaps because such an estimation would become rather statistically involved and require ...