![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
As an experiment, I used ChatGPT for the initial version of this article, both to understand the technology better and to see its potential applications to Wikipedia. The guidelines I set for myself were to start the article in my sandbox, to clearly indicate the initial version as AI-generated, and to only publish it once it had been corrected, wikified, referenced, and rounded out with additional information. It was important for me to have the first edit be uncorrected pure-AI for transparency, so you can see exactly what was generated, and all the human edits made subsequently.
I believe this is the first time someone has done this transparently on English Wikipedia, though no doubt others have experimented sub rosa.
My experience suggests this is mostly useful as a tool for overcoming writer's block, as this is a very general sort of a subject I had been considering writing an article on for years, but was unsure where to start. Using the tool is this way is like having the assistance of a very hard-working, well-read, but shallow research assistant, the AI resembling more Igor than Frankenstein's monster. Pharos ( talk) 19:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
“ | You may provide input to the Services (“Input”), and receive output generated and returned by the Services based on the Input (“Output”). Input and Output are collectively “Content.” As between the parties and to the extent permitted by applicable law, you own all Input, and subject to your compliance with these Terms, OpenAI hereby assigns to you all its right, title and interest in and to Output. | ” |
Q: What is the copyright status of text and responses from ChatGPT?
A: ChatGPT is a chatbot developed by OpenAI that uses machine learning to generate responses to user input. As a machine-generated text, ChatGPT does not have any copyright protection. However, the text generated by ChatGPT may be based on or incorporate material that is protected by copyright, such as quotes or excerpts from copyrighted works. In such cases, the copyright in the original work would still be protected and the use of the material would be subject to the copyright owner's permission. It is the responsibility of the user of ChatGPT to ensure that they are not infringing any copyrights when using the service.
It's good for fun, personal use; for creating Wikipedia article, it's entirely useless in my view. The effort needed to thoroughly verify what it generates far exceeds what it would take to genuinely start a new article from scratch. What Stack Overflow does for the same issue is entirely reasonable and ideally, Wikipedia needs a similar stance, before it's too late. – Ammarpad ( talk) 06:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia has reputation to guard. It's not perfect, yes, but ChatGPT (or any insentient AI agent for that matter) cannot make it so in several decades to come. Per the available facts about this experiment, it can only do the opposite; make Wikipedia worse. Additionally, as already established, it's more difficult to fact-check an AI-generated article than to write a new one. Given all this, I wonder what the gain is in all this.
Yes, "we require there to be one and only one article about a named subject," that's even more reason act now. We do not have chances to waste, any hoax article will remain hoax (read: ChatGPT hallucination), since it is difficult to detect and there are no alternative human written versions (which is possible on StackOverflow). Yes, our policies served us well all this while, because there were no sophisticated machines that can churn out plausible nonsense in split seconds. Now there's, and our policies need to adapt. – Ammarpad ( talk) 17:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I wrote WP:LLM about a month ago as a draft for a potential policy/guideline regarding the use of large language models on Wikipedia; unfortunately, the only place I linked to it was in a rather long and confusing thread on WP:VPP that I don't think anyone was paying attention to. However, it seems that a lot of eyes are on this thread, so I figure I may as well mention it here; if anyone here has feedback, I would be interested in hearing it. Hopefully it can be proposed for formal adoption sooner rather than later. jp× g 11:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd also recommend User:JPxG/LLM demonstration as useful supplementary reading for this; I don't think that having LLMs generate article text from scratch is a use case particularly suited to their strengths (since they cannot dynamically access external sources of text that aren't included in the prompt). However, there are a number of tasks for which they are incredibly well-suited. That is to say, "please reformat the wikitext source for this table to have more easily readable text, and also, make it in the colors of the University of Michigan" is a task that would probably take me about ten or fifteen minutes to do, which ChatGPT did in fifteen seconds (and it looked a lot better than what I would have done as well). jp× g 11:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The current OR tag in my opinion rather defeats the purpose of
WP:TAGGING, as it is inherently not actionable. The last bit of the tag, which is standard language, does indeed make sense, and I did this already a couple of weeks ago, when I first published: Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.
It is not exactly unprecedented in the history of Wikipedia that an unsourced dodgy text is improved by experienced editors, and in any case the point of tagging is to encourage the improvement of an article, not to claim the philosophical impossibility of improving it.
Pharos (
talk)
04:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Whether descriptive or abstract, the title of a work of art can be a crucial element of the artistic processalmost sounds like it comes from Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. Vague opinions by notable sources should be attributed, not stated in Wikivoice, especially when their source appears to be CommonCrawlVoice. Boud ( talk) 20:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I have removed the tag; maintenance templates are meant as a means to indicate potential problems to readers and point editors to relevant discussions, not as a method of inserting paragraph-long talk page comments at the top of a mainspace page. jp× g 11:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I asked the Chat BGT, "Write an eassy on the development of artwork titles through the ages". This is the raw result:
"Artwork titles are an essential part of an artwork's identity. They provide context, meaning, and insight into the artwork, and can often shape our interpretation and understanding of it. The development of artwork titles has been an interesting evolution through the ages, influenced by historical, cultural, and artistic movements.
In ancient times, artwork titles were often descriptive and functional, simply naming the artwork after its subject matter or function. For example, the ancient Egyptians named their artworks after the person or deity depicted in the piece, such as "The Great Sphinx of Giza." Similarly, the Greeks named their sculptures after the mythological figures they depicted, such as "The Discus Thrower" or "Athena Parthenos."
During the Renaissance, artwork titles became more poetic and descriptive, often referencing classical mythology or literature. Artists began to see their works as intellectual and philosophical statements, and the titles reflected this new artistic vision. For example, Leonardo da Vinci's famous painting of the Last Supper was originally titled "The Disciples' Reaction to the Announcement of One Amongst Them Who Should Betray Jesus."
In the Baroque period, artwork titles became more complex and dramatic, reflecting the emotional and theatrical nature of the art. Baroque artists often used titles to create a sense of drama and tension in their artworks. For example, Caravaggio's painting of Judith beheading Holofernes was titled "Judith Slaying Holofernes," highlighting the violent and gruesome nature of the scene.
During the Romantic period, artwork titles became more introspective and personal, reflecting the individualistic and emotional nature of the art. Romantic artists often used titles to express their personal feelings and experiences, as well as their philosophical beliefs. For example, Caspar David Friedrich's painting "Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog" is a personal meditation on the human condition, depicting a solitary figure contemplating the vastness of nature.
In the modern era, artwork titles have become more abstract and experimental, reflecting the avant-garde and experimental nature of the art. Artists often use titles as a form of artistic expression, creating poetic and enigmatic titles that challenge our preconceptions of art and its meaning. For example, Mark Rothko's abstract paintings often have titles such as "No. 61 (Rust and Blue)" or "Orange and Yellow," which provide little context or meaning to the artwork but invite the viewer to engage with the colors and shapes on a purely visual level.
In conclusion, the development of artwork titles through the ages reflects the historical, cultural, and artistic movements of their time. From functional and descriptive titles to poetic and enigmatic ones, artwork titles have evolved to reflect the changing nature of art and its place in society. They continue to be an essential part of an artwork's identity, shaping our interpretation and understanding of it".
These are the sources: "Art and Its Significance: An Anthology of Aesthetic Theory" edited by Stephen David Ross "The Art of Description: World into Word" by Mark Doty "The Meaning of Pictures: Six Lectures Given for Columbia University at the Metropolitan Museum of Art" by Ernst H. Gombrich "Naming the World: And Other Exercises for the Creative Writer" by Bret Anthony Johnston "Art Titles, from Mere Identification to Connotative Power" by Michael J. Lewis, The Wall Street Journal "Art History Basics: Why Do Paintings Have Titles?" by Ingrid Christensen, The Abundant Artist "The Importance of Art Titles" by Daniel Grant, The Huffington Post "Why Art Titles Matter" by Rebecca Gross, Artsy "A Brief History of Art Titles" by Elizabeth O'Neill, The Culture Trip "The Power of Art Titles: From Classic to Modern Times" by Natalia Mego Podešvová, Widewalls.
I also asked it: "Write an essay on translations of artwork titles"
"Translations of artwork titles are an important aspect of understanding art and its context. Translating an artwork title from one language to another can provide insight into the artist's intention and cultural background, as well as help to bridge linguistic and cultural divides.
One of the challenges of translating artwork titles is capturing the nuances of the original language. The title of an artwork is often carefully chosen by the artist to convey a particular meaning or to evoke a certain emotion. When translating a title, it is important to consider not just the literal meaning of the words but also the connotations and associations that the title carries in its original language.
For example, the famous painting by Vincent van Gogh titled "Starry Night" has been translated into many languages, including French ("La nuit étoilée"), Spanish ("La noche estrellada"), and Chinese ("星夜"). Each translation captures the basic meaning of the original title, but there may be subtle differences in how the title is perceived in each language. For instance, the Chinese translation of the title may evoke a different cultural and historical context than the French or Spanish translations, due to the different cultural associations with the night sky in each language.
Another challenge in translating artwork titles is maintaining the artistic integrity of the original work. The title of an artwork is an integral part of its identity, and a poor translation can diminish the impact of the artwork. A translator must balance the need to accurately convey the meaning of the title with the need to preserve its artistic and aesthetic qualities.
One notable example of a mistranslated artwork title is Leonardo da Vinci's famous painting "Mona Lisa." The Italian title of the painting is "La Gioconda," which refers to the smile of the subject. However, the French translation of the title, "La Joconde," mistranslates the word "gioconda" as "jocund," which means cheerful or merry. This mistranslation has led to a misconception that the subject of the painting is smiling in a cheerful manner, when in fact the smile is enigmatic and mysterious.
In conclusion, translating artwork titles is an important aspect of understanding art and its context. Translating a title requires careful consideration of the original language, cultural context, and artistic integrity of the artwork. When done correctly, a well-translated title can provide insight into the artist's intention and help to bridge linguistic and cultural divides."
"The Art of Translating Art Titles" by Emma Cummins, The Culture Trip https://theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/articles/the-art-of-translating-art-titles/
"Translating Art Titles: What's in a Name?" by Allison Meier, Hyperallergic https://hyperallergic.com/437386/translating-art-titles-whats-in-a-name/
"Lost in Translation: The Importance of Artwork Titles" by Claire Voon, Artsy https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-lost-translation-importance-artwork-titles
"The Role of the Title in Art" by Annette Campbell-White, The Huffington Post https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-role-of-the-title-in_b_9697434
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
As an experiment, I used ChatGPT for the initial version of this article, both to understand the technology better and to see its potential applications to Wikipedia. The guidelines I set for myself were to start the article in my sandbox, to clearly indicate the initial version as AI-generated, and to only publish it once it had been corrected, wikified, referenced, and rounded out with additional information. It was important for me to have the first edit be uncorrected pure-AI for transparency, so you can see exactly what was generated, and all the human edits made subsequently.
I believe this is the first time someone has done this transparently on English Wikipedia, though no doubt others have experimented sub rosa.
My experience suggests this is mostly useful as a tool for overcoming writer's block, as this is a very general sort of a subject I had been considering writing an article on for years, but was unsure where to start. Using the tool is this way is like having the assistance of a very hard-working, well-read, but shallow research assistant, the AI resembling more Igor than Frankenstein's monster. Pharos ( talk) 19:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
“ | You may provide input to the Services (“Input”), and receive output generated and returned by the Services based on the Input (“Output”). Input and Output are collectively “Content.” As between the parties and to the extent permitted by applicable law, you own all Input, and subject to your compliance with these Terms, OpenAI hereby assigns to you all its right, title and interest in and to Output. | ” |
Q: What is the copyright status of text and responses from ChatGPT?
A: ChatGPT is a chatbot developed by OpenAI that uses machine learning to generate responses to user input. As a machine-generated text, ChatGPT does not have any copyright protection. However, the text generated by ChatGPT may be based on or incorporate material that is protected by copyright, such as quotes or excerpts from copyrighted works. In such cases, the copyright in the original work would still be protected and the use of the material would be subject to the copyright owner's permission. It is the responsibility of the user of ChatGPT to ensure that they are not infringing any copyrights when using the service.
It's good for fun, personal use; for creating Wikipedia article, it's entirely useless in my view. The effort needed to thoroughly verify what it generates far exceeds what it would take to genuinely start a new article from scratch. What Stack Overflow does for the same issue is entirely reasonable and ideally, Wikipedia needs a similar stance, before it's too late. – Ammarpad ( talk) 06:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia has reputation to guard. It's not perfect, yes, but ChatGPT (or any insentient AI agent for that matter) cannot make it so in several decades to come. Per the available facts about this experiment, it can only do the opposite; make Wikipedia worse. Additionally, as already established, it's more difficult to fact-check an AI-generated article than to write a new one. Given all this, I wonder what the gain is in all this.
Yes, "we require there to be one and only one article about a named subject," that's even more reason act now. We do not have chances to waste, any hoax article will remain hoax (read: ChatGPT hallucination), since it is difficult to detect and there are no alternative human written versions (which is possible on StackOverflow). Yes, our policies served us well all this while, because there were no sophisticated machines that can churn out plausible nonsense in split seconds. Now there's, and our policies need to adapt. – Ammarpad ( talk) 17:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
I wrote WP:LLM about a month ago as a draft for a potential policy/guideline regarding the use of large language models on Wikipedia; unfortunately, the only place I linked to it was in a rather long and confusing thread on WP:VPP that I don't think anyone was paying attention to. However, it seems that a lot of eyes are on this thread, so I figure I may as well mention it here; if anyone here has feedback, I would be interested in hearing it. Hopefully it can be proposed for formal adoption sooner rather than later. jp× g 11:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd also recommend User:JPxG/LLM demonstration as useful supplementary reading for this; I don't think that having LLMs generate article text from scratch is a use case particularly suited to their strengths (since they cannot dynamically access external sources of text that aren't included in the prompt). However, there are a number of tasks for which they are incredibly well-suited. That is to say, "please reformat the wikitext source for this table to have more easily readable text, and also, make it in the colors of the University of Michigan" is a task that would probably take me about ten or fifteen minutes to do, which ChatGPT did in fifteen seconds (and it looked a lot better than what I would have done as well). jp× g 11:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The current OR tag in my opinion rather defeats the purpose of
WP:TAGGING, as it is inherently not actionable. The last bit of the tag, which is standard language, does indeed make sense, and I did this already a couple of weeks ago, when I first published: Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.
It is not exactly unprecedented in the history of Wikipedia that an unsourced dodgy text is improved by experienced editors, and in any case the point of tagging is to encourage the improvement of an article, not to claim the philosophical impossibility of improving it.
Pharos (
talk)
04:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Whether descriptive or abstract, the title of a work of art can be a crucial element of the artistic processalmost sounds like it comes from Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity. Vague opinions by notable sources should be attributed, not stated in Wikivoice, especially when their source appears to be CommonCrawlVoice. Boud ( talk) 20:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I have removed the tag; maintenance templates are meant as a means to indicate potential problems to readers and point editors to relevant discussions, not as a method of inserting paragraph-long talk page comments at the top of a mainspace page. jp× g 11:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I asked the Chat BGT, "Write an eassy on the development of artwork titles through the ages". This is the raw result:
"Artwork titles are an essential part of an artwork's identity. They provide context, meaning, and insight into the artwork, and can often shape our interpretation and understanding of it. The development of artwork titles has been an interesting evolution through the ages, influenced by historical, cultural, and artistic movements.
In ancient times, artwork titles were often descriptive and functional, simply naming the artwork after its subject matter or function. For example, the ancient Egyptians named their artworks after the person or deity depicted in the piece, such as "The Great Sphinx of Giza." Similarly, the Greeks named their sculptures after the mythological figures they depicted, such as "The Discus Thrower" or "Athena Parthenos."
During the Renaissance, artwork titles became more poetic and descriptive, often referencing classical mythology or literature. Artists began to see their works as intellectual and philosophical statements, and the titles reflected this new artistic vision. For example, Leonardo da Vinci's famous painting of the Last Supper was originally titled "The Disciples' Reaction to the Announcement of One Amongst Them Who Should Betray Jesus."
In the Baroque period, artwork titles became more complex and dramatic, reflecting the emotional and theatrical nature of the art. Baroque artists often used titles to create a sense of drama and tension in their artworks. For example, Caravaggio's painting of Judith beheading Holofernes was titled "Judith Slaying Holofernes," highlighting the violent and gruesome nature of the scene.
During the Romantic period, artwork titles became more introspective and personal, reflecting the individualistic and emotional nature of the art. Romantic artists often used titles to express their personal feelings and experiences, as well as their philosophical beliefs. For example, Caspar David Friedrich's painting "Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog" is a personal meditation on the human condition, depicting a solitary figure contemplating the vastness of nature.
In the modern era, artwork titles have become more abstract and experimental, reflecting the avant-garde and experimental nature of the art. Artists often use titles as a form of artistic expression, creating poetic and enigmatic titles that challenge our preconceptions of art and its meaning. For example, Mark Rothko's abstract paintings often have titles such as "No. 61 (Rust and Blue)" or "Orange and Yellow," which provide little context or meaning to the artwork but invite the viewer to engage with the colors and shapes on a purely visual level.
In conclusion, the development of artwork titles through the ages reflects the historical, cultural, and artistic movements of their time. From functional and descriptive titles to poetic and enigmatic ones, artwork titles have evolved to reflect the changing nature of art and its place in society. They continue to be an essential part of an artwork's identity, shaping our interpretation and understanding of it".
These are the sources: "Art and Its Significance: An Anthology of Aesthetic Theory" edited by Stephen David Ross "The Art of Description: World into Word" by Mark Doty "The Meaning of Pictures: Six Lectures Given for Columbia University at the Metropolitan Museum of Art" by Ernst H. Gombrich "Naming the World: And Other Exercises for the Creative Writer" by Bret Anthony Johnston "Art Titles, from Mere Identification to Connotative Power" by Michael J. Lewis, The Wall Street Journal "Art History Basics: Why Do Paintings Have Titles?" by Ingrid Christensen, The Abundant Artist "The Importance of Art Titles" by Daniel Grant, The Huffington Post "Why Art Titles Matter" by Rebecca Gross, Artsy "A Brief History of Art Titles" by Elizabeth O'Neill, The Culture Trip "The Power of Art Titles: From Classic to Modern Times" by Natalia Mego Podešvová, Widewalls.
I also asked it: "Write an essay on translations of artwork titles"
"Translations of artwork titles are an important aspect of understanding art and its context. Translating an artwork title from one language to another can provide insight into the artist's intention and cultural background, as well as help to bridge linguistic and cultural divides.
One of the challenges of translating artwork titles is capturing the nuances of the original language. The title of an artwork is often carefully chosen by the artist to convey a particular meaning or to evoke a certain emotion. When translating a title, it is important to consider not just the literal meaning of the words but also the connotations and associations that the title carries in its original language.
For example, the famous painting by Vincent van Gogh titled "Starry Night" has been translated into many languages, including French ("La nuit étoilée"), Spanish ("La noche estrellada"), and Chinese ("星夜"). Each translation captures the basic meaning of the original title, but there may be subtle differences in how the title is perceived in each language. For instance, the Chinese translation of the title may evoke a different cultural and historical context than the French or Spanish translations, due to the different cultural associations with the night sky in each language.
Another challenge in translating artwork titles is maintaining the artistic integrity of the original work. The title of an artwork is an integral part of its identity, and a poor translation can diminish the impact of the artwork. A translator must balance the need to accurately convey the meaning of the title with the need to preserve its artistic and aesthetic qualities.
One notable example of a mistranslated artwork title is Leonardo da Vinci's famous painting "Mona Lisa." The Italian title of the painting is "La Gioconda," which refers to the smile of the subject. However, the French translation of the title, "La Joconde," mistranslates the word "gioconda" as "jocund," which means cheerful or merry. This mistranslation has led to a misconception that the subject of the painting is smiling in a cheerful manner, when in fact the smile is enigmatic and mysterious.
In conclusion, translating artwork titles is an important aspect of understanding art and its context. Translating a title requires careful consideration of the original language, cultural context, and artistic integrity of the artwork. When done correctly, a well-translated title can provide insight into the artist's intention and help to bridge linguistic and cultural divides."
"The Art of Translating Art Titles" by Emma Cummins, The Culture Trip https://theculturetrip.com/europe/united-kingdom/articles/the-art-of-translating-art-titles/
"Translating Art Titles: What's in a Name?" by Allison Meier, Hyperallergic https://hyperallergic.com/437386/translating-art-titles-whats-in-a-name/
"Lost in Translation: The Importance of Artwork Titles" by Claire Voon, Artsy https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-lost-translation-importance-artwork-titles
"The Role of the Title in Art" by Annette Campbell-White, The Huffington Post https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-role-of-the-title-in_b_9697434