This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject AI Cleanup page. |
|
AI Cleanup | ||||
|
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, all non-archive subpages of this talk page redirect here. |
Hello! The AI catchphrases list is a great idea, and based on the article it just drew my attention to I'd like to suggest putting "must-visit" and "must-see" on your list too. AI seems to love those and they're definitely not encyclopedic. Thanks for the useful work you're doing! ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 05:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm part of a research project as part of Stanford's OVAL. We are studying building tools that are factually grounded which I'm sure you can imagine is quite a challenge. We have built a model that appears to be relatively accurate and are hoping for Wikipedia Collaborators to participate in evaluation. We have built a UI tool to display a human written article and an article from our model and would score both. The UI tool has been built to streamline the evaluation process, even including the snippets of cited sources relevant. We have monetary compensation available for participants.
While none of the articles produced by our model are intended to be published There is potential for the tool to be integrated as part of Wikipedia:New Pages Patrol efforts, perhaps as a comparison between draft articles our the models outputs to see where improvement could be necessary. There is more information in our m:Research:Wikipedia type Articles Generated by LLM (Not for Publication on Wikipedia) Talk area.
If you are interested please fill out this form. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfaivclenvs9pdnW7cFcsTyvYy-wSCR_Vr_oYzJx_2bm-ZAqA/viewform?usp=sf_link
We are beginning Evaluation currently so potentially only earlier responders will be able to participate as funding is limited.
Thank you Terribilis11 ( talk) 19:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Back in August, there was an event where an editor over at WP:VG generated 24 articles entirely with AI. Some of these were deleted entirely, but the majority were redirected with still accessible page histories, and around two articles still stand now (though trimmed). Only one article has been completely rewritten and repaired, and that's Cybermania '94. The editor in question was also blocked.
This incident may be something worth noting somewhere in this project, whether to have more examples of AI generated content, to reconstruct articles that formerly used AI from the ground up, or whatever other reason. Negative MP1 01:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
If you find a AI-using editor, make sure to warn them with {{subst:uw-ai1}}, which should be coming to Twinkle soon. Ca talk to me! 00:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Large language model policy#RFC, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 22:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
currently the page Artificial planet uses an AI image.
(by the way, if there's a better place to bring things like this to attention, please let me know; this is the first wikiproject i've been apart of and i am inexperienced.) EspWikiped ( talk) 15:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Poverty_in_Turkey&oldid=986832491
I am suspicious of the many offline references and further reading. But the author has been blocked so I suppose no point asking them. I don’t know much about Chat GPT etc. Is there a formal investigation process to look at all the other stuff created by User:Torshavn1337 and their sockpuppets? I only intend to fix Poverty in Turkey (no need to delete article as subject is notable) not any other articles such as Foreign relations of Turkey. Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey seems pretty moribund so I think I would be wasting my time asking them anything. Any ideas? Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
The templates Template:AI-generated sources and Template:AI-generated images are being discussed for deletion here. sawyer * he/they * talk 02:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I have some doubts that most of the phrases at Wikipedia:WikiProject_AI_Cleanup/AI_Catchphrases are useful for identifying AI-generated content. As a test, I clicked on the first link ( stand as a testament) and opened the first 3 pages ( Domenico Selvo, Chifley Research Centre, and Apollo (dog)). In each case, the catchphrase was already present in 2021 (see [2], [3], and [4]), i.e. before the official release of all the main LLMs today. So it is very unlikely that the phrases in these articles were created using AI.
Another reason for doubt is that AI output is based on the frequency of formulations used in the training set. Since Wikipedia is a big part of the training set, any phrases that are frequently used on Wikipedia may also be frequently used in AI output.
There may be some rather obvious phrases useful to identify AI content, such "As a large language model, I...", "As an AI language model, I...", and the like. But most of the phrases listed here do not fall into that category. Phlsph7 ( talk) 08:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort in trying to help editors identify ChatGPT responses but I'm not sure that
the recent adjustments solve the problem. Depending on the prompt used, the responses can have all kinds of linguistic problems or none at all. For example, I used the prompt write a wikipedia article on the topic "Metaphysics"
and got the following result:
ChatGPT response
|
---|
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that explores the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, potentiality and actuality. The word "metaphysics" comes from two Greek words that, together, literally mean "after physics". The name was given c.70 B.C.E. by Andronicus Rhodus, the editor of the works of Aristotle, because in his list of Aristotle's works, the Physics comes before the works dealing with metaphysics. Overview Metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms: 1. "What is there?" 2. "What is it like?" A person who studies metaphysics is called a metaphysicist or a metaphysician. The metaphysician tries to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, including existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into what types of things there are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another. The metaphysician also attempts to clarify the notions by which people understand the world, including existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, |
After a first initial look at the response, I don't think it has any of the "typical" problems discussed here. My suggestion would be to be very careful with any concrete guides on how to identify AI output. It might also be a good idea to follow reliable sources concerning how to identify it rather than presenting our personal research as a definite guide. I assume many editors have very little background knowledge on LLMs so we should not give them the false impression that there are generally accepted methods for identifying LLM output. Phlsph7 ( talk) 08:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
As of my last knowledge update in January 2022), but there isn't any criterion or tool that can reliably decide both ways (and, since LLMs can get closer to human speech than the variance inside each group, and text can't be easily watermarked like images, it's likely there won't be anytime soon). ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 10:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
This would entail a move to Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Large language models. The page would be tagged with Template:WikiProject advice. It would be, in some way, prominently linked from the project's main page. I further suggest some rearrangement of content on that page and the project's main page, namely, the section Wikipedia:Large language models § Handling suspected LLM-generated content could be merged with the related content on the project's main page ( Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup#Editing advice and most of the templates listed in the "Templates" section). The "See also" section could be combined with Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup § Resources on the main page. The advice page would therefore consist of the first two sections of WP:LLM: "Risks and relevant policies" and "Usage".
The motive behind this proposal is keeping things coherent and avoiding duplication. — Alalch E. 00:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Every edit that incorporates LLM output should be marked as LLM-assisted by identifying the name and, if possible, version of the AI in the edit summary. This applies to all namespaces.is worded as if it was policy, but it is not. And
In biographies of living persons, such content should be removed immediately—without waiting for discussion, or for someone else to resolve the tagged issue.is actually not supported by policy. If you are reverting content exclusively because you think it is AI-generated and you have no specific concern about accuracy, sourcing, or copyright violations, then that revert goes against policy. MarioGom ( talk) 11:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi all,
First of all: I am waaaaay out of my depth there, and my apologies if this goes nowhere - fine with that. Please see pretty any much of my contributions where I poke fun at myself for being a " Sysop" who doesn't actually understand how the internet works.
It would appear to me that there are any number of AI "conclusions" or "summary" generators out there in the wild.
Please see this for context.
Shirt58 ( talk) 🦘 09:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
This might be me, but should we be using AI-generated imagery in articles unrelated to artificial intelligence? — Davest3r08 >:) ( talk) 21:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Should there be an equivalent of {{ AI-generated}} for images, flagging that an article has multiple upscaled historical images that should, per MOS:IMAGES, be replaced with their originals? Either a separate template or an option on {{ AI-generated}} that changes the message.
I'm thinking of articles I've seen like A Stranger from Somewhere where an editor has, with good but misplaced intentions, fed a lot of old film stills and 1910s publicity photos through an AI upscaler. Belbury ( talk) 16:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I would like to hear your opinions about my proposal for a new Wikimedia project called Wikimedia Commons AI. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts! S. Perquin ( talk) ( discover the power of thankfulness!) – 09:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I think that this and the WP:WikiProject Unreferenced articles has a lot in common and we should collaborate with each other, because both deal with article's reliability. But I don't really know what exactly could both projects collab with... CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 14:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
SheriffIsInTown ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly using low-quality WP:LLM to quickly generate Wikipedia articles and even using to generate robotic rationales to nominate Wikipedia articles (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher Afzal Marwat (2nd nomination)). Please take a look on their recent articles and fix the tone or tag accordingly. 59.103.110.154 ( talk) 23:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
is clearly using low-quality WP:LLM to quickly generate Wikipedia articlesclaim seems false to me, they had only created six articles (although I might be missing some articles created from redirects) in January before this post, none of which look like AI. Now, the
and even using to generate [ sic] robotic rationales to nominate Wikipedia articles (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher Afzal Marwat (2nd nomination))claim. The AfD you linked does read AI, but their articles do not, and either way, we can't really do anything about behavioral issues. The accused also has not nominated an AfD since, so I'd just drop it. Queen of Hearts ( chat • stalk • they/she) 01:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I spent the last 15 minutes or so trying to figure out how to boldly reintroduce the collapsible feature of the marquee that was removed in this edit in December, but I couldn't figure out a way that preserved its "look". I'm bringing this up rather than just abandoning the idea of it being (re)hidden because it seems to just be present for "fun" (i.e. unless I'm missing something it doesn't seem to serve a clear or unique purpose in the context of the WikiProject) and something about it caused some rather immediate nausea for me (maybe the way it's moving, but I usually need more like 15 to 30 minutes for that kind of motion sensitivity, not three seconds :-/). Is there any way for collapsibility to be reintroduced by someone who has more of an idea of what could be done to collapse the marquee without compromising the way it looks when unhidden (or compromising the ability to re-hide the content, as {{ show}} would do)? Or no, and then my recourse is to hide it in my own user CSS? - Purplewowies ( talk) 23:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
There's a bit of a discussion on Bluesky of statements in Wikipedia being sourced to LLMs. One reader asks for "Advice on how to report AI-Generated rubbish to Wikipedia so it can be purged."
I've said to just edit it, noting that you removed a claim sourced to LLM output. But unsure not-yet-editors are perennial.
So is there anywhere that readers can report possible or likely LLM citation? - David Gerard ( talk) 12:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Have a way to prevent "hallucinated" AI-generated citations in articles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 01:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This is a bit of a related topic that I haven't seen many people touch on so far. There's been a rise in websites like BNN Breaking (which is on the WP spam list) that simply reword existing news articles or make up fake news entirely (as opposed to established sources like CNET that have some articles written by AI). Some cases even involve cybersquatting on domains owned by defunct news sources. Should we keep track of the use of these sources in articles (likely by good faith editors who believe the site is legitimate)?
Some articles about this phenomenon:
wizzito | say hello! 06:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello there,
I was looking through the notice board and I saw about the project, I was a bit intrested to join. Can you give a bit of introduction like what are the criteria to be a participant, what do you expect a participant to know or be good in and is there any like fixed goal to stay in the project and am I eligible. I have gone through the page lightly but was intrested if I could get some basic understanding so I can decide wether to join or not.
Thanks
Yamantakks ( talk) 10:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
See Talk:Ideogram and the associated pages' revision history, thanks to @ Malerisch for pointing out why this page was attracting graffito after graffito. Remsense 诉 14:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Hiya! I got pointed toward this project when I asked about declaration of AI-generated media in an external group. I noticed that the article for Kemonā uses a Stable Diffusion-generated image, which has not been declared. I noticed it, as the file has previously been up for deletion-discussion on Commons, but was kept as it was "in use". If used, shouldn't AI-generated media be declared in its description / image legend? EdoAug ( talk) 23:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
It was suggested to me that this maybe a good place to ask. A response seemed particularly hollow at Talk:Canadian_AIDS_Society so I checked on GPTZero and ZeroGPT. The first says 100% AI, and latter says about 25% likely. Quillbot says ~75% likely. So, the results vary widely based on the checker used. Is it actually likely that a certain 100% manually written contents would get tagged as 100% AI on GPTZero? Do any of human observers here feel the response in question here could be 100% human written? Graywalls ( talk) 00:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
By the way, that Canadian AIDS Society's Establishment section returns 100% AI on GPTZero as well and sure looks pretty hollow to me. Graywalls ( talk) 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I found an article about a historical individual that contained a fully AI generated image. I mentioned this on the Teapot page and the image eventually got removed because it was original research. I tried to find some Wikipedia guideline or rule about the use of AI images but I couldn't find any. Since this WikiProject is about AI content, I came here to ask about the official Wikipedia policy on AI images, if there is any. Are AI images supposed to be removed simply because they're original research or is there something specific regarding AI images that warrants their removal? I'm looking for details regarding the use of AI images on Wikipedia and when are AI images acceptable to use. Thank you all in advance for your responses. Broadhead Arrow ( talk) 15:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Further to your helpful advice above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup#Was this article created by AI? a lot of new text has recently been added to Poverty in Turkey by a student @ Roach619. I have asked on their talk page for them to add cites but I doubt they will reply as their course has now ended.
Is there a tool I or their tutor or @ Ian (Wiki Ed): can use to check whether the new text was AI generated please? If not what are your opinions please? Chidgk1 ( talk) 16:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject AI Cleanup page. |
|
AI Cleanup | ||||
|
To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, all non-archive subpages of this talk page redirect here. |
Hello! The AI catchphrases list is a great idea, and based on the article it just drew my attention to I'd like to suggest putting "must-visit" and "must-see" on your list too. AI seems to love those and they're definitely not encyclopedic. Thanks for the useful work you're doing! ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 05:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm part of a research project as part of Stanford's OVAL. We are studying building tools that are factually grounded which I'm sure you can imagine is quite a challenge. We have built a model that appears to be relatively accurate and are hoping for Wikipedia Collaborators to participate in evaluation. We have built a UI tool to display a human written article and an article from our model and would score both. The UI tool has been built to streamline the evaluation process, even including the snippets of cited sources relevant. We have monetary compensation available for participants.
While none of the articles produced by our model are intended to be published There is potential for the tool to be integrated as part of Wikipedia:New Pages Patrol efforts, perhaps as a comparison between draft articles our the models outputs to see where improvement could be necessary. There is more information in our m:Research:Wikipedia type Articles Generated by LLM (Not for Publication on Wikipedia) Talk area.
If you are interested please fill out this form. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfaivclenvs9pdnW7cFcsTyvYy-wSCR_Vr_oYzJx_2bm-ZAqA/viewform?usp=sf_link
We are beginning Evaluation currently so potentially only earlier responders will be able to participate as funding is limited.
Thank you Terribilis11 ( talk) 19:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Back in August, there was an event where an editor over at WP:VG generated 24 articles entirely with AI. Some of these were deleted entirely, but the majority were redirected with still accessible page histories, and around two articles still stand now (though trimmed). Only one article has been completely rewritten and repaired, and that's Cybermania '94. The editor in question was also blocked.
This incident may be something worth noting somewhere in this project, whether to have more examples of AI generated content, to reconstruct articles that formerly used AI from the ground up, or whatever other reason. Negative MP1 01:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
If you find a AI-using editor, make sure to warn them with {{subst:uw-ai1}}, which should be coming to Twinkle soon. Ca talk to me! 00:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Large language model policy#RFC, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 22:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
currently the page Artificial planet uses an AI image.
(by the way, if there's a better place to bring things like this to attention, please let me know; this is the first wikiproject i've been apart of and i am inexperienced.) EspWikiped ( talk) 15:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Poverty_in_Turkey&oldid=986832491
I am suspicious of the many offline references and further reading. But the author has been blocked so I suppose no point asking them. I don’t know much about Chat GPT etc. Is there a formal investigation process to look at all the other stuff created by User:Torshavn1337 and their sockpuppets? I only intend to fix Poverty in Turkey (no need to delete article as subject is notable) not any other articles such as Foreign relations of Turkey. Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey seems pretty moribund so I think I would be wasting my time asking them anything. Any ideas? Chidgk1 ( talk) 11:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
The templates Template:AI-generated sources and Template:AI-generated images are being discussed for deletion here. sawyer * he/they * talk 02:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I have some doubts that most of the phrases at Wikipedia:WikiProject_AI_Cleanup/AI_Catchphrases are useful for identifying AI-generated content. As a test, I clicked on the first link ( stand as a testament) and opened the first 3 pages ( Domenico Selvo, Chifley Research Centre, and Apollo (dog)). In each case, the catchphrase was already present in 2021 (see [2], [3], and [4]), i.e. before the official release of all the main LLMs today. So it is very unlikely that the phrases in these articles were created using AI.
Another reason for doubt is that AI output is based on the frequency of formulations used in the training set. Since Wikipedia is a big part of the training set, any phrases that are frequently used on Wikipedia may also be frequently used in AI output.
There may be some rather obvious phrases useful to identify AI content, such "As a large language model, I...", "As an AI language model, I...", and the like. But most of the phrases listed here do not fall into that category. Phlsph7 ( talk) 08:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort in trying to help editors identify ChatGPT responses but I'm not sure that
the recent adjustments solve the problem. Depending on the prompt used, the responses can have all kinds of linguistic problems or none at all. For example, I used the prompt write a wikipedia article on the topic "Metaphysics"
and got the following result:
ChatGPT response
|
---|
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that explores the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, potentiality and actuality. The word "metaphysics" comes from two Greek words that, together, literally mean "after physics". The name was given c.70 B.C.E. by Andronicus Rhodus, the editor of the works of Aristotle, because in his list of Aristotle's works, the Physics comes before the works dealing with metaphysics. Overview Metaphysics attempts to answer two basic questions in the broadest possible terms: 1. "What is there?" 2. "What is it like?" A person who studies metaphysics is called a metaphysicist or a metaphysician. The metaphysician tries to clarify the fundamental notions by which people understand the world, including existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility. A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into what types of things there are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another. The metaphysician also attempts to clarify the notions by which people understand the world, including existence, objecthood, property, space, time, causality, |
After a first initial look at the response, I don't think it has any of the "typical" problems discussed here. My suggestion would be to be very careful with any concrete guides on how to identify AI output. It might also be a good idea to follow reliable sources concerning how to identify it rather than presenting our personal research as a definite guide. I assume many editors have very little background knowledge on LLMs so we should not give them the false impression that there are generally accepted methods for identifying LLM output. Phlsph7 ( talk) 08:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
As of my last knowledge update in January 2022), but there isn't any criterion or tool that can reliably decide both ways (and, since LLMs can get closer to human speech than the variance inside each group, and text can't be easily watermarked like images, it's likely there won't be anytime soon). ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 10:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
This would entail a move to Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Large language models. The page would be tagged with Template:WikiProject advice. It would be, in some way, prominently linked from the project's main page. I further suggest some rearrangement of content on that page and the project's main page, namely, the section Wikipedia:Large language models § Handling suspected LLM-generated content could be merged with the related content on the project's main page ( Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup#Editing advice and most of the templates listed in the "Templates" section). The "See also" section could be combined with Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup § Resources on the main page. The advice page would therefore consist of the first two sections of WP:LLM: "Risks and relevant policies" and "Usage".
The motive behind this proposal is keeping things coherent and avoiding duplication. — Alalch E. 00:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Every edit that incorporates LLM output should be marked as LLM-assisted by identifying the name and, if possible, version of the AI in the edit summary. This applies to all namespaces.is worded as if it was policy, but it is not. And
In biographies of living persons, such content should be removed immediately—without waiting for discussion, or for someone else to resolve the tagged issue.is actually not supported by policy. If you are reverting content exclusively because you think it is AI-generated and you have no specific concern about accuracy, sourcing, or copyright violations, then that revert goes against policy. MarioGom ( talk) 11:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi all,
First of all: I am waaaaay out of my depth there, and my apologies if this goes nowhere - fine with that. Please see pretty any much of my contributions where I poke fun at myself for being a " Sysop" who doesn't actually understand how the internet works.
It would appear to me that there are any number of AI "conclusions" or "summary" generators out there in the wild.
Please see this for context.
Shirt58 ( talk) 🦘 09:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
This might be me, but should we be using AI-generated imagery in articles unrelated to artificial intelligence? — Davest3r08 >:) ( talk) 21:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Should there be an equivalent of {{ AI-generated}} for images, flagging that an article has multiple upscaled historical images that should, per MOS:IMAGES, be replaced with their originals? Either a separate template or an option on {{ AI-generated}} that changes the message.
I'm thinking of articles I've seen like A Stranger from Somewhere where an editor has, with good but misplaced intentions, fed a lot of old film stills and 1910s publicity photos through an AI upscaler. Belbury ( talk) 16:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I would like to hear your opinions about my proposal for a new Wikimedia project called Wikimedia Commons AI. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts! S. Perquin ( talk) ( discover the power of thankfulness!) – 09:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I think that this and the WP:WikiProject Unreferenced articles has a lot in common and we should collaborate with each other, because both deal with article's reliability. But I don't really know what exactly could both projects collab with... CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 14:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
SheriffIsInTown ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is clearly using low-quality WP:LLM to quickly generate Wikipedia articles and even using to generate robotic rationales to nominate Wikipedia articles (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher Afzal Marwat (2nd nomination)). Please take a look on their recent articles and fix the tone or tag accordingly. 59.103.110.154 ( talk) 23:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
is clearly using low-quality WP:LLM to quickly generate Wikipedia articlesclaim seems false to me, they had only created six articles (although I might be missing some articles created from redirects) in January before this post, none of which look like AI. Now, the
and even using to generate [ sic] robotic rationales to nominate Wikipedia articles (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher Afzal Marwat (2nd nomination))claim. The AfD you linked does read AI, but their articles do not, and either way, we can't really do anything about behavioral issues. The accused also has not nominated an AfD since, so I'd just drop it. Queen of Hearts ( chat • stalk • they/she) 01:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I spent the last 15 minutes or so trying to figure out how to boldly reintroduce the collapsible feature of the marquee that was removed in this edit in December, but I couldn't figure out a way that preserved its "look". I'm bringing this up rather than just abandoning the idea of it being (re)hidden because it seems to just be present for "fun" (i.e. unless I'm missing something it doesn't seem to serve a clear or unique purpose in the context of the WikiProject) and something about it caused some rather immediate nausea for me (maybe the way it's moving, but I usually need more like 15 to 30 minutes for that kind of motion sensitivity, not three seconds :-/). Is there any way for collapsibility to be reintroduced by someone who has more of an idea of what could be done to collapse the marquee without compromising the way it looks when unhidden (or compromising the ability to re-hide the content, as {{ show}} would do)? Or no, and then my recourse is to hide it in my own user CSS? - Purplewowies ( talk) 23:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
There's a bit of a discussion on Bluesky of statements in Wikipedia being sourced to LLMs. One reader asks for "Advice on how to report AI-Generated rubbish to Wikipedia so it can be purged."
I've said to just edit it, noting that you removed a claim sourced to LLM output. But unsure not-yet-editors are perennial.
So is there anywhere that readers can report possible or likely LLM citation? - David Gerard ( talk) 12:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Have a way to prevent "hallucinated" AI-generated citations in articles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 01:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This is a bit of a related topic that I haven't seen many people touch on so far. There's been a rise in websites like BNN Breaking (which is on the WP spam list) that simply reword existing news articles or make up fake news entirely (as opposed to established sources like CNET that have some articles written by AI). Some cases even involve cybersquatting on domains owned by defunct news sources. Should we keep track of the use of these sources in articles (likely by good faith editors who believe the site is legitimate)?
Some articles about this phenomenon:
wizzito | say hello! 06:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello there,
I was looking through the notice board and I saw about the project, I was a bit intrested to join. Can you give a bit of introduction like what are the criteria to be a participant, what do you expect a participant to know or be good in and is there any like fixed goal to stay in the project and am I eligible. I have gone through the page lightly but was intrested if I could get some basic understanding so I can decide wether to join or not.
Thanks
Yamantakks ( talk) 10:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
See Talk:Ideogram and the associated pages' revision history, thanks to @ Malerisch for pointing out why this page was attracting graffito after graffito. Remsense 诉 14:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Hiya! I got pointed toward this project when I asked about declaration of AI-generated media in an external group. I noticed that the article for Kemonā uses a Stable Diffusion-generated image, which has not been declared. I noticed it, as the file has previously been up for deletion-discussion on Commons, but was kept as it was "in use". If used, shouldn't AI-generated media be declared in its description / image legend? EdoAug ( talk) 23:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
It was suggested to me that this maybe a good place to ask. A response seemed particularly hollow at Talk:Canadian_AIDS_Society so I checked on GPTZero and ZeroGPT. The first says 100% AI, and latter says about 25% likely. Quillbot says ~75% likely. So, the results vary widely based on the checker used. Is it actually likely that a certain 100% manually written contents would get tagged as 100% AI on GPTZero? Do any of human observers here feel the response in question here could be 100% human written? Graywalls ( talk) 00:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
By the way, that Canadian AIDS Society's Establishment section returns 100% AI on GPTZero as well and sure looks pretty hollow to me. Graywalls ( talk) 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
I found an article about a historical individual that contained a fully AI generated image. I mentioned this on the Teapot page and the image eventually got removed because it was original research. I tried to find some Wikipedia guideline or rule about the use of AI images but I couldn't find any. Since this WikiProject is about AI content, I came here to ask about the official Wikipedia policy on AI images, if there is any. Are AI images supposed to be removed simply because they're original research or is there something specific regarding AI images that warrants their removal? I'm looking for details regarding the use of AI images on Wikipedia and when are AI images acceptable to use. Thank you all in advance for your responses. Broadhead Arrow ( talk) 15:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Further to your helpful advice above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup#Was this article created by AI? a lot of new text has recently been added to Poverty in Turkey by a student @ Roach619. I have asked on their talk page for them to add cites but I doubt they will reply as their course has now ended.
Is there a tool I or their tutor or @ Ian (Wiki Ed): can use to check whether the new text was AI generated please? If not what are your opinions please? Chidgk1 ( talk) 16:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)