User talk:Rsjaffe/Archives/2023/February
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Our 2022 Annual Report is now ready for review.
Highlights:
– Your Guild coordinators:
Baffle gab1978, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
Sent by
AI generated articles
Hello, Rory,
I've come across a couple of articles you tagged as having been created with AI and I just wondered how you coud tell this was true. They weren't sourced and were pretty vague in their content but I was wondering if there was a script or tool you used or whether it was a judgment on your part. I work a lot with draft articles these days and it would be helpful to be able to tell whether or not the content was original. Thank you! Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- There are several tools I use. The first is made by the company that produces ChatGPT. It is based on an earlier version but seems to work well. I don't count it as AI-created unless the certainty is above 99%. It usually is above 99.9%. There isn't a bell-curve distribution of readings. Most are either close to 0% fake (that is, human-produced) or 99.98% fake (LLM model, e.g., ChatGPT produced). I've never had anyone argue that the tag was incorrect, and I've probably tagged about 40 articles so far.
- The tool is at https://openai-openai-detector.hf.space/. I paste in the text, omitting headings and inline ref tags. A second detector, if you're interested, is https://detector.dng.ai/. I almost always just use the first. Sometimes the AI text is embedded within other text (e.g., a custom written opening paragraph), in which case I omit the custom-written text when testing.
- I've been looking for "tells" before testing. The text is more "lifeless" than human text typically is, tends to have uniform length sentences, and may have a paragraph at the end that is a summary paragraph. The text is also unlikely to have in-line references. This doesn't catch all of them but tends to be a high-likelihood way of finding them. Some of these AI-generated articles also have AI-generated references. The references are almost always fake: the AI confabulates reasonable-sounding references! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm just stumbling across this after a heads-up in the newsroom for The Signpost. We included a teaser about AI generated articles in a recent issue. Can you tell me how to find the articles you tagged? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Bri Search for hastemplate:AI-generated in article and draftspace. I think several of them did make it to article space but were then draftified. I'd have to go through the edit history to figure out which ones those were. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Also, a couple have had the template removed after the author re-edited the page to remove the AI-generated text. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Here we go: Draft:Nordic states game industry was in article space. It was subsequently moved to Draft. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Also, a couple have had the template removed after the author re-edited the page to remove the AI-generated text. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Bri Search for hastemplate:AI-generated in article and draftspace. I think several of them did make it to article space but were then draftified. I'd have to go through the edit history to figure out which ones those were. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm just stumbling across this after a heads-up in the
Your take on AI content quality
Thanks for the pointer to the draft. Do you have a personal reaction to the quality of the generated articles? Briefly, are you for or against this method of creation? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Strongly against. These language generators are good at stringing together reasonable-sounding text, but:
- 1. Don't rely solely on what Wikipedia recognizes as reliable sources.
- 2. Don't have a sense of what is real and what is fake.
- 3. Will fabricate information to fill in gaps.
- 4. Cannot identify where any specific bit of "information" came from.
- So the text can fail WP:V, yet may look very convincing.
- However, they're good at helping to break "writer's block", by giving an example of how to write something. So I see having some text generated by ChatGPT would be helpful as a writing prompt, but without using any of the generated text directly—just looking at it and then writing a well-researched article similar to the prompt. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Cool, let's follow up more at The Newsroom, I see one of the other editors contacted you by email and I'm not sure who was first (doesn't really matter now). ☆ Bri (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Before I do anything else, could you affirm that it's OK if I use the conversation above in The Signpost as a mini interview? Also, do you prefer we refer to you by the name on your userpage, your on-Wiki username, or both? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested at
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator
Jon Nordmark page
Did you message me about this page? You were wondering if I have written wikipages before? I assume you see my history, yes? Davejenk1ns (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- It was in error. I had put a speedy delete tag on the page but then withdrew it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- Okay thanks Davejenk1ns (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)