Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Engineering

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Destinyokhiria 💬 12:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM aided design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification.

@Timtrent author @Manvi jha13 came onto IRC Live Chat asking for assistance with this. They've repeated the article was not created with AI: they state they are pursuing a PHD in this topic so wrote the draft as an academic essay instead of an Wikipedia article. Have given guidance, and assuming good faith. qcne (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QcneThank you so much for your message.

@Timtrent, thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft and for providing your feedback — I sincerely appreciate your efforts.

It is rather intriguing to see the draft being marked as AI-generated again. I have stated in my talk page for the article and would like the opportunity to clarify again that no content of the given page has been generated by AI. The AI tools have been used for vocabulary suggestion, but in no case for text generation. I believe that given the academic use and exploration of the topic, along with the fact that I am a PhD student mostly engaged in academic writing, gives the article a similar tone, which I have tried to improve since your suggestions. Please do let me know if there are any additional areas/sections/perspectives you would suggest for me to improve on.

Additionally, I have noticied that you have reservations regarding the citations? I believe all the citations are academic publications. Please let me know if and how I can improve them.

Thank you,

Manvi Manvi jha13 (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manvi jha13, in reference to your claim on Talk:LLM aided design that "The use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement", could you please disclose in full detail the extent to which you used an LLM to generate the article, including the content, section headings, references, and formatting? Additionally, could you please disclose the name and versions of the AI tool(s) that you have been using to edit Wikipedia, as well as whether you are using those tools to author your comments in discussions like this one? — Newslinger talk 20:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Newslinger

When I state that "the use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement," I am referring specifically to minor assistance such as suggesting synonyms or checking for spelling and grammatical errors (ChatGPT-4o). Importantly, no AI tools were used to draft or generate any content or contextual material.

Additionally, I want to clarify that AI was never used in drafting or contributing to any discussions or comments. I reaffirm that at no point was AI employed to generate new text or ideas, thereby eliminating any concern regarding hallucinations or the reliability of the content. Manvi jha13 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manvi jha13, you made the edit Special:Diff/1296403283 to the article within the last hour. How did you generate the references and the citation code that you added into the article? — Newslinger talk 20:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean generate references? They are the papers I have read, most of them are initailly made available on Arxiv and later published via conferences or journals. Why would it be difficult to find them?

As for citiation code, it is a rather starightforward format one can write it themselves, in any case to simplyfy my work, I wrote a small python script that takes bibtex format citaion and converts to wikipedia style. This helps reduce manual effort, and ensures consistency. I’ve made sure all included sources are verifiable and meet the reliability standards expected here. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger, My apologies, I missed to ping you in my response, please refer to my reply above. Thank you in advance. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the citation code were generated with a Python script, it's not clear why the code would use plaintext instead of normalized citation templates such as {{

Articles for creation (AfC) process. — Newslinger talk 21:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

@Newslinger Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger

Thank you for your feedback. I don't understand why a python script would be limited to citation template, it would be able to take input and produce results based on how I program it. So I respectfully but completely disagree with this claim of yours.

Additionally, as I already stated, the use of ChatGPT was restricted to the use for checking grammar and spelling errors. To highlight the procedure goes like- I write a draft -> I pass it to ChatGPT with a prompt asking to fix any spelling or grammatical errors in the given text and just use that. This procedure in no way known to me generates new text. Additionally, in order to clarify again, this is the topic I am working on for PhD, the academic tone and style (including the usage of lists and detailed descriptions) is thus a result of the same Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the version of your draft before you processed it with ChatGPT?​ — Newslinger talk 21:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger

Thank you for your question.

I would not have the article as a whole but yes I can get all the paragraphs I processed through the ChatGPT history. Would you like samples or screenshots (or other methods you deem satisfactory for proving, since that is what we are doing here)?

Honestly it is a bit intriguing to see how intolerant the Wikipedia community is of the academic community and their writing style. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide the pre-ChatGPT content in text form on the article talk page,

Manual of Style, and LLM-generated articles almost always deviate from the style guidelines in much more distinct ways than the average new editor would.

To clarify my previous comment, I did not say that a Python script would be limited to generating citation templates, although I do find it unusual that your script converts citations to "wikipedia style" by partially outputting Markdown instead of using a normalized citation template format. — Newslinger talk 22:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

@Newslinger

Thank you for your feedback.

Sure I can add pre-ChatGPT text for reference, just to clarify, do you expect the entire article or a few paragraphs would be enough?

Additionally for the python script, I do not use any libraries, my script simply takes the BibTex(easier to extract from), extracts details like paper name, author name etc.. and simply arranged them in a template I give. The template is the one I found to be the best fit for my scenario, it can be heavily varying from the general trend but I don't think that should be an issue? Manvi jha13 (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are able to post the entire pre-ChatGPT article, that would be preferred as it would be most helpful to all interested editors. For your citation script, I highly recommend revising your script template to use Wikipedia's

Citation Style 1 templates to ensure that it consistently meets Wikipedia's citation style guidelines.​ — Newslinger talk 22:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi @Newslinger

I have added a sample in the talk section of the article. Please refer to it for context. I decided not to include the entire article, as I did not want to create a lengthy and potentially cluttered post there. However, if you still have any reservations about the use of AI in the article based on the example provided, please let me know.

Additionally, I found the article WP:CHATGPT, which clearly states that using AI to refine text is acceptable, as long as the content does not involve hallucinations, inaccuracies, or unverifiable claims. Given that the text in this article has been thoroughly reviewed and all sources are properly cited, I would like to ask if you have identified any instances where this might have been an issue? Manvi jha13 (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you
  WP:HEY. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  As nominator I have no objection to consensus based draftification, though I would prefer an assurance that, if sent back to draft, the creating editor will submit for review and work with the outcome of that review and any further iteration. That might be a closure condition, in an ideal world. [[If

  WP:HEY has happened pre closure then it shoul dbe retained. If I am notified I will consider withdrawal. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Engineering, and Computing. Skynxnex (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Timtrent

  Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback and suggestions. I have revised the article accordingly. The updated version no longer includes arXiv or other non–peer-reviewed sources. I hope these changes help improve the article's quality and bring it closer to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and reliability. Manvi jha13 (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft: is the best option. Unfortunately, it's nearly entirely sourced to arXiv articles, which are not reliable sources. Pre-prints, meaning they've not been peer-reviewed yet. Once they get published, they would have to then show reliable sourcing. This article is also perhaps a bit too technical for a general audience. Needs a rewrite and better sourcing at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  or let it incubate offline and submit it for the AfC review. This wouldn't pass as is anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Article should be improved, then in the longer term merged with AI-driven design automation. This is another new page, with a more general overview (not all AIs are LLMs). Both pages have issues, but the topic is surely worth keeping. LouScheffer (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @LouScheffer,

  Thank you so much for your valuable review. I would greatly appreciate your guidance or suggestions on how the article could be improved.

  While AI-driven design automation does involve hardware design, it is fundamentally different from LLM-aided design. AI-driven automation typically refers to techniques like MLIR or the use of Bayesian optimization and supervised/unsupervised/reinforcement learning to improve stages of the design process. However, its scope is generally limited to optimization rather than generation.

  In contrast, LLM-aided design focuses on the ability to generate descriptions, code, and even complete designs from natural language input; something beyond the capabilities of traditional AI-driven automation. This distinction, I believe, is key to understanding the scope and novelty of LLM-aided approaches. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• TNT Are sure this entire article is not LLM generated? It has a weird, unencyclopedic promotional tone. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (with no shade intended to
  reliable secondary sources). Cnilep (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Hi @Cnilep

  Thank you so much for your feedback and interest in the topic. I'd like to offer some insights based on my understanding and research into LLMs so far.

  To the best of my understanding, it would be considered "text generation" in the context of Wikipedia if the entire article or part of it were artificially created, which could potentially lead to false information or hallucinations (a known risk even with the latest LLMs). However, when the use of an LLM is solely for refinement purposes- such as improving grammar, suggesting synonyms, or rephrasing sentences- it's comparable to using a thesaurus tool or the inbuilt features in MS Word/Grammarly that flag grammatical issues and suggest more suitable word choices. In my view, this does not lead to the generation of entirely new or potentially inaccurate information.

  Many people are opting for AI tools over MS Word or Grammarly because they can save a lot of time in the writing process. However, after reflecting on the depth of the discussion on this page, I'm starting to wonder if that time saved is worth it! Manvi jha13 (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd stick to the old-fashioned stuff, Manvi jha13. It doesn't take a lot more time and using it develops writing and vocabulary skills. Old-fashioned tools like thesauruses, Grammarly and your brain are much more reliable.

  Wikipedia editors are becoming increasingly wary of any LLM material being used on Wikipedia since it's still unreliable. Of particular concern for us, LLMs tasked with generating an article will produce an impeccably formatted list of footnoted references which turn out to be either inapplicable or just plain made up; that's the kiss of death for Wikipedia's reliability. So if someone senses you're using LLMs, it develops trust issues. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I checked all the article's references and verified that almost all existed (one or two links didn't work for me). All were at least somewhat relevant (I am not an AI expert so "somewhat" was as close as I could figure). All but the several non-peer reviewed refs already discussed above came from very reputable sources such as the
  IEEE and the ACM. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per my comments above. I'm no AI expert so I can't say for sure but I suspect we've got a really good article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify or delete. The article requires major revision, bordering on a total rewrite, to be an encyclopedia article. There are footnotes, yes, but as far as I can tell they are serving in lieu, or redundantly in addition to wikilinks (
  WP:PRIMARY literature, and non-independent. All of the analytic or evaluative content of the article are original research, or at least as they would be as far as we would be able to tell (if there are sources they are based from, the author has not cited many of them). This should not be resubmitted without the issues identified being addressed. Alternatively, this can be submitted to a different project that does accept original theories and conclusions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]