User talk:CoderThomasB/Archives/2023/April
Administrators' newsletter – April 2023News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).
When is it appropriate to use content initially generated by an LLM?Thanks for your important work maintaining Wikipedia! And for checking [my edit](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WebAssembly&diff=prev&oldid=1149510377&diffmode=source) so quickly, and [letting me know that it might not be appropriate](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chadoh#An_edit_that_you_recently_made_seemed_to_be_generated_using_a_large_language_model). I was unaware of the draft policy around LLM use; good to know. I believe this is actually a case where using text originally sourced from an LLM is ok. I'll go through the guidelines and explain how my edit adhered to each, but let me start by explaining why I wanted this edit: I was working on documentation for a new blockchain project that uses Wasm, and I wanted a single word of that documentation to link to an authoritative website or page that lists all of the places where Wasm is used. One of the first places I looked was, of course, the Wikipedia page, specifically the Implementations section. I and my collaborators know enough about WebAssembly to know that this section of the Wikipedia article was far from complete! Failing to find a better list, I thought the best possible place for the information would be Wikipedia. My teammate asked GPT-4 (I do not pay for it myself), and its list was a much better starting point than Wikipedia's. It had a couple small errors, which I corrected, and I added links to all of the projects it listed, so that any reader need only click them to verify that each does, in fact, use WebAssembly. Ok, now let's go through those guidelines: 1. You may not ask neural networks to write original content and find sources. Even if such content was heavily edited, seek other alternatives that don't use the neural network's original content.The "original content" was, in this case, mostly just a list. I edited this list and made it more appropriate for Wikipedia. 2. You may use these neural networks as a writing advisor, i.e. asking for outlines, asking how to improve the paragraph, asking for criticism for the text, etc. However, you should be aware that the information it gives to you can be unreliable and flat out wrong. Use due diligence and common sense when choosing whether to incorporate the neural network's suggestion or not.I used due diligence and common sense; I am an expert in the field. 3. You may use these neural networks for copyediting and paraphrasing, but note that it may not properly detect grammatical errors or keep the key information intact. Use due diligence and do heavily edit the response from the neural network.I did. 4. You are responsible for making sure that using neural network will not be disruptive to Wikipedia. Therefore, you must denote that a neural network was used in the edit summary.I did. 5. LLMs are not reliable sources. Unless their outputs were published by reliable outlets with rigorous oversight, they should not be cited in our articles.I didn't cite one. 6. Wikipedia is not a testing ground for large language models. The use of Wikipedia for experiments or trials is forbidden.I did not use Wikipedia as an experiment or trial. 7. You must not use LLMs to write your comments.I did not. Chadoh (talk) Chadoh (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
