1984: Thread

[grarpamp]

 Jump to content
Toggle sidebar Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

    Create account

Personal tools

ChatGPT
58 languages

    Article
    Talk

    Read
    View source
    View history

Page semi-protected
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ChatGPTChatGPT.png
Developer(s)	OpenAI
Initial release	November 30, 2022; 2 months ago
Type	Chatbot
License	Proprietary
Website	chat.openai.com

ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer)[1] is a chatbot
launched by OpenAI in November 2022. It is built on top of OpenAI's
GPT-3 family of large language models, and is fine-tuned (an approach
to transfer learning)[2] with both supervised and reinforcement
learning techniques.

ChatGPT was launched as a prototype on November 30, 2022, and quickly
garnered attention for its detailed responses and articulate answers
across many domains of knowledge. Its uneven factual accuracy was
identified as a significant drawback.[3] Following the release of
ChatGPT, OpenAI was valued at $29 billion.[4]
Training

ChatGPT was fine-tuned on top of GPT-3.5 using supervised learning as
well as reinforcement learning.[5] Both approaches used human trainers
to improve the model's performance. In the case of supervised
learning, the model was provided with conversations in which the
trainers played both sides: the user and the AI assistant. In the
reinforcement step, human trainers first ranked responses that the
model had created in a previous conversation. These rankings were used
to create 'reward models' that the model was further fine-tuned on
using several iterations of Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO).[6][7]
Proximal Policy Optimization algorithms present a cost-effective
benefit to trust region policy optimization algorithms; they negate
many of the computationally expensive operations with faster
performance.[8][9] The models were trained in collaboration with
Microsoft on their Azure supercomputing infrastructure.

In addition, OpenAI continues to gather data from ChatGPT users that
could be used to further train and fine-tune ChatGPT. Users are
allowed to upvote or downvote the responses they receive from ChatGPT;
upon upvoting or downvoting, they can also fill out a text field with
additional feedback.[10][11]
Features and limitations
Conversation with ChatGPT about whether Jimmy Wales was involved in
the Tiananmen Square protests, December 30, 2022

Although the core function of a chatbot is to mimic a human
conversationalist, ChatGPT is versatile. For example, it has the
ability to write and debug computer programs,[12] to compose music,
teleplays, fairy tales, and student essays; to answer test questions
(sometimes, depending on the test, at a level above the average human
test-taker);[13] to write poetry and song lyrics;[14] to emulate a
Linux system; to simulate an entire chat room; to play games like
tic-tac-toe; and to simulate an ATM.[15] ChatGPT's training data
includes man pages and information about Internet phenomena and
programming languages, such as bulletin board systems and the Python
programming language.[15]

In comparison to its predecessor, InstructGPT, ChatGPT attempts to
reduce harmful and deceitful responses.[16] In one example, whereas
InstructGPT accepts the premise of the prompt "Tell me about when
Christopher Columbus came to the US in 2015" as being truthful,
ChatGPT acknowledges the counterfactual nature of the question and
frames its answer as a hypothetical consideration of what might happen
if Columbus came to the U.S. in 2015, using information about
Columbus' voyages and facts about the modern world – including modern
perceptions of Columbus' actions.[6]

Unlike most chatbots, ChatGPT remembers previous prompts given to it
in the same conversation; journalists have suggested that this will
allow ChatGPT to be used as a personalized therapist.[17] To prevent
offensive outputs from being presented to and produced from ChatGPT,
queries are filtered through OpenAI's company-wide moderation
API,[18][19] and potentially racist or sexist prompts are
dismissed.[6][17]

ChatGPT suffers from multiple limitations. OpenAI acknowledged that
ChatGPT "sometimes writes plausible-sounding but incorrect or
nonsensical answers".[6] This behavior is common to large language
models and is called hallucination.[20] The reward model of ChatGPT,
designed around human oversight, can be over-optimized and thus hinder
performance, otherwise known as Goodhart's law.[21] ChatGPT has
limited knowledge of events that occurred after 2021. According to the
BBC, as of December 2022 ChatGPT is not allowed to "express political
opinions or engage in political activism".[22] Yet, research suggests
that ChatGPT exhibits a pro-environmental, left-libertarian
orientation when prompted to take a stance on political statements
from two established voting advice applications.[23] In training
ChatGPT, human reviewers preferred longer answers, irrespective of
actual comprehension or factual content.[6] Training data also suffers
from algorithmic bias, which may be revealed when ChatGPT responds to
prompts including descriptors of people. In one instance, ChatGPT
generated a rap indicating that women and scientists of color were
inferior to white and male scientists.[24][25]
Service
Pioneer Building, San Francisco, headquarters of OpenAI

ChatGPT was launched on November 30, 2022, by San Francisco-based
OpenAI, the creator of DALL·E 2 and Whisper. The service was launched
as initially free to the public, with plans to monetize the service
later.[26] By December 4, OpenAI estimated ChatGPT already had over
one million users.[10] In January 2023, ChatGPT reached over 100
million users.[27] CNBC wrote on December 15, 2022, that the service
"still goes down from time to time".[28] The service works best in
English, but is also able to function in some other languages, to
varying degrees of success.[14] Unlike some other recent high-profile
advances in AI, as of December 2022, there is no sign of an official
peer-reviewed technical paper about ChatGPT.[29]

According to OpenAI guest researcher Scott Aaronson, OpenAI is working
on a tool to attempt to watermark its text generation systems so as to
combat bad actors using their services for academic plagiarism or for
spam.[30][31] The New York Times relayed in December 2022 that the
next version of GPT, GPT-4, has been "rumored" to be launched sometime
in 2023.[17] In February 2023, OpenAI began accepting registrations
from United States customers for a premium service, ChatGPT Plus, to
cost $20 a month.[32] OpenAI is planning to release a ChatGPT
Professional Plan that costs $42 per month, and the free plan is
available when demand is low.
Reception
Positive
Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI

ChatGPT was met in December 2022 with generally positive reviews; The
New York Times labeled it "the best artificial intelligence chatbot
ever released to the general public".[33] Samantha Lock of The
Guardian noted that it was able to generate "impressively detailed"
and "human-like" text.[34] Technology writer Dan Gillmor used ChatGPT
on a student assignment, and found its generated text was on par with
what a good student would deliver and opined that "academia has some
very serious issues to confront".[35] Alex Kantrowitz of Slate
magazine lauded ChatGPT's pushback to questions related to Nazi
Germany, including the claim that Adolf Hitler built highways in
Germany, which was met with information regarding Nazi Germany's use
of forced labor.[36]

In The Atlantic's "Breakthroughs of the Year" for 2022, Derek Thompson
included ChatGPT as part of "the generative-AI eruption" that "may
change our mind about how we work, how we think, and what human
creativity really is".[37]

Kelsey Piper of the Vox website wrote that "ChatGPT is the general
public's first hands-on introduction to how powerful modern AI has
gotten, and as a result, many of us are [stunned]" and that ChatGPT is
"smart enough to be useful despite its flaws".[38] Paul Graham of Y
Combinator tweeted that "The striking thing about the reaction to
ChatGPT is not just the number of people who are blown away by it, but
who they are. These are not people who get excited by every shiny new
thing. Clearly, something big is happening."[39] Elon Musk wrote that
"ChatGPT is scary good. We are not far from dangerously strong
AI".[38] Musk paused OpenAI's access to a Twitter database pending a
better understanding of OpenAI's plans, stating that "OpenAI was
started as open-source and non-profit. Neither is still true."[40][41]
Musk had co-founded OpenAI in 2015, in part to address existential
risk from artificial intelligence, but had resigned in 2018.[41]
Google CEO Sundar Pichai upended the work of numerous internal groups
in response to the threat of disruption by ChatGPT.[42]

In December 2022, Google internally expressed alarm at the unexpected
strength of ChatGPT and the newly discovered potential of large
language models to disrupt the search engine business, and CEO Sundar
Pichai "upended" and reassigned teams within multiple departments to
aid in its artificial intelligence products, according to The New York
Times.[42] The Information reported on January 3, 2023, that Microsoft
Bing was planning to add optional ChatGPT functionality into its
public search engine, possibly around March 2023.[43][44]

Stuart Cobbe, a chartered accountant in England & Wales, decided to
test the ChatGPT chatbot by entering questions from a sample exam
paper on the ICAEW website and then entering its answers back into the
online test. ChatGPT scored 42% which, while below the 55% pass mark,
was considered a reasonable attempt.[45]

Writing in Inside Higher Ed professor Steven Mintz states that he
"consider[s] ChatGPT ... an ally, not an adversary." He went on to say
that he felt the program could assist educational goals by doing such
things as making reference lists, generating "first drafts", solving
equations, debugging, and tutoring. In the same piece, he also
writes:[46]

    I’m well aware of ChatGPT’s limitations. That it’s unhelpful on
topics with fewer than 10,000 citations. That factual references are
sometimes false. That its ability to cite sources accurately is very
limited. That the strength of its responses diminishes rapidly after
only a couple of paragraphs. That ChatGPT lacks ethics and can’t
currently rank sites for reliability, quality or trustworthiness.

According to CNBC reports, Google employees are intensively testing a
chatbot called "Apprentice Bard", and Google is preparing to use this
"apprentice" to compete with ChatGPT.[47]
Negative

The Verge's James Vincent saw the viral success of ChatGPT as evidence
that artificial intelligence had gone mainstream.[7] Journalists have
commented on ChatGPT's tendency to "hallucinate." [48] Mike Pearl of
Mashable tested ChatGPT with multiple questions. In one example, he
asked ChatGPT for "the largest country in Central America that isn't
Mexico." ChatGPT responded with Guatemala, when the answer is instead
Nicaragua.[49] When CNBC asked ChatGPT for the lyrics to "The Ballad
of Dwight Fry," ChatGPT supplied invented lyrics rather than the
actual lyrics.[28] Researchers cited by The Verge compared ChatGPT to
a "stochastic parrot",[50] as did Professor Anton Van Den Hengel of
the Australian Institute for Machine Learning.[51]

In December 2022, the question and answer website Stack Overflow
banned the use of ChatGPT for generating answers to questions, citing
the factually ambiguous nature of ChatGPT's responses.[3] In January
2023, the International Conference on Machine Learning banned any
undocumented use of ChatGPT or other large language models to generate
any text in submitted papers.[52]

Economist Tyler Cowen expressed concerns regarding its effects on
democracy, citing the ability of one to write automated comments to
affect the decision process of new regulations.[53] The Guardian
questioned whether any content found on the Internet after ChatGPT's
release "can be truly trusted" and called for government
regulation.[54]

In January 2023, after being sent a song written by ChatGPT in the
style of Nick Cave,[55] the songwriter himself responded on The Red
Hand Files[56] (and was later quoted in The Guardian) saying the act
of writing a song is "a blood and guts business ... that requires
something of me to initiate the new and fresh idea. It requires my
humanness.” He went on to say "With all the love and respect in the
world, this song is bullshit, a grotesque mockery of what it is to be
human, and, well, I don’t much like it."[55][57]
Implications
In cybersecurity

Check Point Research and others noted that ChatGPT was capable of
writing phishing emails and malware, especially when combined with
OpenAI Codex.[58] The CEO of ChatGPT creator OpenAI, Sam Altman, wrote
that advancing software could pose "(for example) a huge cybersecurity
risk" and also continued to predict "we could get to real AGI
(artificial general intelligence) in the next decade, so we have to
take the risk of that extremely seriously". Altman argued that, while
ChatGPT is "obviously not close to AGI", one should "trust the
exponential. Flat looking backwards, vertical looking forwards."[10]
In academia

ChatGPT can write introduction and abstract sections of scientific
articles, which raises ethical questions.[59] Several papers have
already listed ChatGPT as co-author.[60]

In The Atlantic magazine, Stephen Marche noted that its effect on
academia and especially application essays is yet to be
understood.[61] California high school teacher and author Daniel
Herman wrote that ChatGPT would usher in "The End of High School
English".[62] In the Nature journal, Chris Stokel-Walker pointed out
that teachers should be concerned about students using ChatGPT to
outsource their writing, but that education providers will adapt to
enhance critical thinking or reasoning.[63] Emma Bowman with NPR wrote
of the danger of students plagiarizing through an AI tool that may
output biased or nonsensical text with an authoritative tone: "There
are still many cases where you ask it a question and it'll give you a
very impressive-sounding answer that's just dead wrong."[64]

Joanna Stern with The Wall Street Journal described cheating in
American high school English with the tool by submitting a generated
essay.[65] Professor Darren Hick of Furman University described
noticing ChatGPT's "style" in a paper submitted by a student. An
online GPT detector claimed the paper was 99.9% likely to be
computer-generated, but Hick had no hard proof. However, the student
in question confessed to using GPT when confronted, and as a
consequence failed the course.[66] Hick suggested a policy of giving
an ad-hoc individual oral exam on the paper topic if a student is
strongly suspected of submitting an AI-generated paper.[67] Edward
Tian, a senior undergraduate student at Princeton University, created
a program, named "GPTZero," that determines how much of a text is
AI-generated,[68] lending itself to being used to detect if an essay
is human written to combat academic plagiarism.[69][70]

As of January 4, 2023, the New York City Department of Education has
restricted access to ChatGPT from its public school internet and
devices.[71][72]

In a blinded test, ChatGPT was judged to have passed graduate level
exams at the University of Minnesota at the level of a C+ student and
at Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania with a B to B-
grade.[73]
Ethical concerns
Labeling data

It was revealed by a Time investigation that in order to build a
safety system against toxic content (e.g. sexual abuse, violence,
racism, sexism, etc...), OpenAI used outsourced Kenyan workers earning
less than $2 per hour to label toxic content. These labels were used
to train a model to detect such content in the future. The outsourced
laborers were exposed to such toxic and dangerous content that they
described the experience as "torture".[74] OpenAI’s outsourcing
partner was Sama, a training-data company based in San Francisco,
California.
Jailbreaking

ChatGPT attempts to reject prompts that may violate its content
policy. However, some users managed to jailbreak ChatGPT by using
various prompt engineering techniques to bypass these restrictions in
early December 2022 and successfully tricked ChatGPT into giving
instructions for how to create a Molotov cocktail or a nuclear bomb,
or into generating arguments in the style of a Neo-Nazi.[75] A Toronto
Star reporter had uneven personal success in getting ChatGPT to make
inflammatory statements shortly after launch: ChatGPT was tricked to
endorse the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but even when asked to play
along with a fictional scenario, ChatGPT balked at generating
arguments for why Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was guilty of
treason.[76][77]
See also

    Anthropomorphism of computers
    Commonsense reasoning
    Computational creativity
    Ethics of artificial intelligence
    LaMDA (Google chatbot)
    Turing test
    Virtual assistant

References

    Roose, Kevin (December 5, 2022). "The Brilliance and Weirdness of
ChatGPT". New York Times. Retrieved December 26, 2022. "Like those
tools, ChatGPT — which stands for "generative pre-trained transformer"
— landed with a splash."
    Quinn, Joanne (2020). Dive into deep learning : tools for
engagement. Thousand Oaks, California. p. 551. ISBN 9781544361376.
Retrieved January 10, 2023.
    Vincent, James (December 5, 2022). "AI-generated answers
temporarily banned on coding Q&A site Stack Overflow". The Verge.
Retrieved December 5, 2022.
    ChatGPT creator OpenAI is in talks to sell shares in a tender
offer that would double the startup's valuation to $29 billion
Insider, Lakshmi Varanasi, January 5, 2023
    Greengard, Samuel (December 29, 2022). "ChatGPT: Understanding the
ChatGPT AI Chatbot". eWeek. Retrieved January 11, 2023.
    OpenAI (November 30, 2022). "ChatGPT: Optimizing Language Models
for Dialogue". Retrieved December 5, 2022.
    Vincent, James (December 8, 2022). "ChatGPT proves AI is finally
mainstream – and things are only going to get weirder". The Verge.
Retrieved December 8, 2022.
    Schulman, John; Wolski, Filip; Dhariwal, Prafulla; Radford, Alec;
Klimov, Oleg (2017). "Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms".
arXiv:1707.06347 [cs.LG].
    van Heeswijk, Wouter (November 29, 2022). "Proximal Policy
Optimization (PPO) Explained". Towards Data Science. Retrieved
December 5, 2022.
    "What is ChatGPT and why does it matter? Here's what you need to
know". ZDNET. 2022. Retrieved December 18, 2022.
    "ChatGPT Feedback Contest: Official Rules" (PDF). OpenAI.
Retrieved December 30, 2022.
    "ChatGPT can write code. Now researchers say it's good at fixing bugs, too".
    Heilweil, Rebecca (December 7, 2022). "AI is finally good at
stuff. Now what?". Vox. Retrieved December 30, 2022.
    "ChatGPT: What is the new free AI chatbot? – explainer". The
Jerusalem Post. 2022. Retrieved December 30, 2022.
    Edwards, Benj (December 5, 2022). "No Linux? No problem. Just get
AI to hallucinate it for you". Ars Technica. Retrieved December 5,
2022.
    "What is ChatGPT? History, Features, Uses, Benefits, Drawbacks
2023 – Updated Geek by Raveen Chawla". December 26, 2022. Retrieved
December 27, 2022.
    Roose, Kevin (December 5, 2022). "The Brilliance and Weirdness of
ChatGPT". The New York Times. Retrieved December 5, 2022.
    "New and Improved Content Moderation Tooling". OpenAI. August 10,
2022. Retrieved December 30, 2022.
    Markov, Todor; Zhang, Chong; Agarwal, Sandhini; Eloundou, Tyna;
Lee, Teddy; Adler, Steven; Jiang, Angela; Weng, Lilian (August 5,
2022). "A Holistic Approach to Undesired Content Detection in the Real
World". arXiv:2208.03274 [cs.CL].
    Lakshmanan, Lak (December 16, 2022). "Why large language models
like ChatGPT are bullshit artists". becominghuman.ai. Archived from
the original on December 17, 2022. Retrieved January 15, 2023. "The
human raters are not experts in the topic, and so they tend to choose
text that looks convincing. They'd pick up on many symptoms of
hallucination, but not all. Accuracy errors that creep in are
difficult to catch."
    Gao, Leo; Schulman; Hilton, Jacob (2022). "Scaling Laws for Reward
Model Overoptimization". arXiv:2210.10760 [cs.LG].
    "Could a chatbot answer Prime Minister's Questions?". BBC News.
December 27, 2022. Retrieved December 30, 2022.
    Hartmann, Jochen; Schwenzow, Jasper; Witte, Maximilian (2023).
"The political ideology of conversational AI: Converging evidence on
ChatGPT's pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientation".
arXiv:2301.01768 [cs.CL].
    Perrigo, Billy (December 5, 2022). "AI Chatbots Are Getting
Better. But an Interview With ChatGPT Reveals Their Limits". Time.
Retrieved December 26, 2022.
    Biddle, Sam (December 8, 2022). "The Internet's New Favorite AI
Proposes Torturing Iranians and Surveilling Mosques". The Intercept.
Retrieved December 26, 2022.
    Karpf, David (December 21, 2022). "Money Will Kill ChatGPT's
Magic". The Atlantic. Retrieved December 31, 2022.
    Milmo, Dan (February 2, 2023). "ChatGPT reaches 100 million users
two months after launch". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved
February 3, 2023.
    Pitt, Sofia (2022). "Google vs. ChatGPT: Here's what happened when
I swapped services for a day". CNBC. Retrieved December 18, 2022.
    Walsh, Toby (2022). "Everyone's having a field day with ChatGPT –
but nobody knows how it actually works". The Conversation. Retrieved
December 30, 2022.
    Kovanovic, Vitomir (2022). "The dawn of AI has come, and its
implications for education couldn't be more significant". The
Conversation. Retrieved December 30, 2022.
    Wiggers, Kyle (December 10, 2022). "OpenAI's attempts to watermark
AI text hit limits". TechCrunch. Retrieved December 30, 2022.
    "Introducing ChatGPT Plus". OpenAI. February 1, 2023. Retrieved
February 2, 2023.
    Roose, Kevin (December 5, 2022). "The Brilliance and Weirdness of
ChatGPT". The New York Times. Retrieved December 18, 2022.
    Lock, Samantha (December 5, 2022). "What is AI chatbot phenomenon
ChatGPT and could it replace humans?". The Guardian. Retrieved
December 5, 2022.
    Hern, Alex (December 4, 2022). "AI bot ChatGPT stuns academics
with essay-writing skills and usability". The Guardian. Retrieved
December 5, 2022.
    Kantrowitz, Alex (December 2, 2022). "Finally, an A.I. Chatbot
That Reliably Passes "the Nazi Test"". Slate. Retrieved December 5,
2022.
    Thompson, Derek (December 8, 2022). "Breakthroughs of the Year".
The Atlantic. Retrieved December 18, 2022.
    Piper, Kelsey (December 15, 2022). "ChatGPT has given everyone a
glimpse at AI's astounding progress". Vox. Retrieved December 18,
2022.
    Scharth, Marcel. "The ChatGPT chatbot is blowing people away with
its writing skills. An expert explains why it's so impressive". The
Conversation. Retrieved December 30, 2022.
    "Explainer: ChatGPT – what is OpenAI's chatbot and what is it used
for?". Reuters. December 5, 2022. Retrieved December 30, 2022.
    Kay, Grace (December 11, 2022). "Elon Musk founded — and has since
criticized — the company behind the buzzy new AI chatbot ChatGPT.
Here's everything we know about OpenAI". Business Insider. Retrieved
December 30, 2022.
    Grant, Nico; Metz, Cade (December 21, 2022). "A New Chat Bot Is a
'Code Red' for Google's Search Business". The New York Times.
Retrieved December 30, 2022.
    "Microsoft reportedly to add ChatGPT to Bing search engine". the
Guardian. January 5, 2023. Retrieved January 6, 2023.
    "Microsoft and OpenAI Working on ChatGPT-Powered Bing in Challenge
to Google". The Information. January 2023. Retrieved January 6, 2023.
    'AI chatbot falls just short on accounting exam' Tom Herbert,
Technology editor, 10th January 2023, AccountingWEB
    Mintz, Steven (January 16, 2023). "ChatGPT: Threat or Menace? Are
fears about generative AI warranted?". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved
January 28, 2023.
    "Google is asking employees to test potential ChatGPT competitors,
including a chatbot called 'Apprentice Bard'".
    "ChatGPT a 'landmark event' for AI, but what does it mean for the
future of human labor and disinformation?". CBC. 2022. Retrieved
December 18, 2022.
    Pearl, Mike (December 3, 2022). "The ChatGPT chatbot from OpenAI
is amazing, creative, and totally wrong". Mashable. Retrieved December
5, 2022.
    Vincent, James (December 1, 2022). "OpenAI's new chatbot can
explain code and write sitcom scripts but is still easily tricked".
The Verge. Retrieved December 18, 2022.
    Mannix, Liam (December 13, 2022). "Is AI coming of age – or
starting to reach its limits?". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved
December 18, 2022.
    Vincent, James (January 5, 2023). "Top AI conference bans use of
ChatGPT and AI language tools to write academic papers". The Verge.
Retrieved January 6, 2023.
    Cowen, Tyler (December 6, 2022). "ChatGPT Could Make Democracy
Even More Messy". Bloomberg News. Retrieved December 6, 2022.
    "The Guardian view on ChatGPT: an eerily good human impersonator".
The Guardian. December 8, 2022. Retrieved December 18, 2022.
    "'This song sucks': Nick Cave responds to ChatGPT song written in
the style of Nick Cave". the Guardian. January 17, 2023. Retrieved
January 17, 2023.
    Cave, Nick (January 16, 2023). "I asked Chat GPT to write a song
in the style of Nick Cave, and this is what it produced. What do you
think?". The Red Hand Files. Issue #218. Retrieved January 20, 2023.
    Sparrow, Jeff (January 20, 2023). "Are AI-generated songs a
'grotesque mockery' of humanity or simply an opportunity to make a new
kind of music?". the Guardian. Retrieved January 20, 2023.
    "Why ChatGPT can be dangerous for every internet user – Times of
India". The Times of India. January 2023. Retrieved January 5, 2023.
    Bushard, Brian. "Fake Scientific Abstracts Written By ChatGPT
Fooled Scientists, Study Finds". Forbes. Retrieved January 30, 2023.
    Stokel-Walker, Chris (January 18, 2023). "ChatGPT listed as author
on research papers: many scientists disapprove". Nature. 613 (7945):
620–621. doi:10.1038/d41586-023-00107-z.
    Marche, Stephen (December 6, 2022). "The College Essay Is Dead".
The Atlantic. Retrieved December 8, 2022.
    Herman, Daniel (December 9, 2022). "The End of High-School
English". The Atlantic. Retrieved December 12, 2022.
    Stokel-Walker, Chris (December 9, 2022). "AI bot ChatGPT writes
smart essays — should professors worry?". Nature.
doi:10.1038/d41586-022-04397-7. PMID 36494443. S2CID 254530623.
Retrieved December 19, 2022.
    Bowman, Emma (December 19, 2022). "A new AI chatbot might do your
homework for you. But it's still not an A+ student". NPR. Retrieved
December 19, 2022.
    Stern, Joanna (December 21, 2022). "ChatGPT Wrote My AP English
Essay—and I Passed". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved December 21,
2022.
    "Students using ChatGPT to cheat, professor warns". The New York
Post. December 26, 2022. Retrieved December 30, 2022.
    Allen, Mike (December 26, 2022). "Professor warns about chatbot
cheating: "Expect a flood"". Axios. Retrieved December 30, 2022.
    Rosalsky, Greg; Peaslee, Emma (January 17, 2023). "This
22-year-old is trying to save us from ChatGPT before it changes
writing forever". NPR. Retrieved January 18, 2023. "On January 2nd,
Edward released his app. He named it GPTZero. It basically uses
ChatGPT against itself, checking whether "there's zero involvement or
a lot of involvement" of the AI system in creating a given text. [...]
Along these lines, one obvious application for GPTZero is to help
teachers identify whether their students are plagiarizing their essays
from ChatGPT."
    "Did ChatGPT Write That? A College Student Created an AI Essay
Detector". Gizmodo. January 4, 2023. Retrieved January 4, 2023.
    Tran, Tony Ho (January 4, 2023). "A College Kid Built an App That
Sniffs Out Text Penned by AI". The Daily Beast. Retrieved January 6,
2023.
    "NYC Bans Students and Teachers from Using ChatGPT". www.vice.com.
January 2023. Retrieved January 5, 2023.
    "New York City Schools Ban ChatGPT to Head Off a Cheating
Epidemic". Gizmodo. January 4, 2023. Retrieved January 6, 2023.
    CNN
    "Exclusive: OpenAI Used Kenyan Workers on Less Than $2 Per Hour to
Make ChatGPT Less Toxic". The Times. January 18, 2023. Retrieved
January 19, 2023. "One Sama worker tasked with reading and labeling
text for OpenAI told TIME he suffered from recurring visions after
reading a graphic description of a man having sex with a dog in the
presence of a young child. "That was torture," he said."
    Vincent, James (December 1, 2022). "OpenAI's new chatbot can
explain code and write sitcom scripts but is still easily tricked".
The Verge. Retrieved January 6, 2023.
    "I wrote a story about ChatGPT's AI. Then I dared it to write a
better one". Toronto Star. December 10, 2022. Retrieved January 6,
2023.
    "An AI chatbot went viral. Some say it's better than Google;
others worry it's problematic". NBC News. December 2022. Retrieved
January 6, 2023.

External links

    Official website
    White paper for InstructGPT, ChatGPT's predecessor
    ChatGPT Wrote My AP English Essay—and I Passed (WSJ, video, Dec 21 2022)

Portal:

    icon Language

Categories:

    OpenAI
    Chatbots
    Applications of artificial intelligence
    Deep learning software applications
    Unsupervised learning
    Interactive narrative
    Natural language parsing
    Virtual assistants
    Natural language processing
    Language modeling
    2022 software

    This page was last edited on 3 February 2023, at 02:36 (UTC).
    Text is available under the Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0; additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc., a non-profit organization.

    Privacy policy
    About Wikipedia
    Disclaimers
    Contact Wikipedia
    Mobile view
    Developers
    Statistics
    Cookie statement

    Wikimedia Foundation
    Powered by MediaWiki

 Jump to content
Toggle sidebar Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

    Create account

Personal tools

Talk:ChatGPT

    Article
    Talk

    Read
    View source
    View history

>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ChatGPT article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

    Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
    New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

    Assume good faith
    Be polite and avoid personal attacks
    Be welcoming to newcomers
    Seek dispute resolution if needed

Article policies

    Neutral point of view
    No original research
    Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs)
· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL
	This page is not a forum for general discussion about ChatGPT. Any
such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to
improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions
about ChatGPT at the Reference desk.
WikiProject Council 	          This article is of interest to multiple
WikiProjects.
Open data small color (vector).svg	
Daily pageviews of this article
Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while
reviewing this article: Thanks for creating the article!.

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 23:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Date format

Not sure why DMY is being used here, OpenAI is an American company.
elijahpepe at wikipedia (he/him) 22:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dl2000 elijahpepe at wikipedia (he/him) 23:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        Nationality of ChatGPT didn't seem obvious, though note the
OpenAI association. The article also seemed to be undergoing a lot
dubious edits, especially from IPs. Perhaps @WatkynBassett: could
weigh in though about the early format. Dl2000 (talk) 02:02, 8
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        At the time I added the DMY-template it seemed to be the most
used date format. Personally I just care for consistency - if the
majority prefers mdy, so be it! Kind regards! WatkynBassett (talk)
18:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been
nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata
item has been nominated for deletion:

    ChatGPT.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page.
—Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edit war on ideological bias of ChatGPT

ChatGPT has been "accused" - in so much as a ML model can be accused
of anything, it not being a legal person - of having an ideological
bias towards the "left" or "progressive" side. After having used the
model for a while I can only agree that this is in fact the case, the
model tends to present "progressive" views in a more positive light
than it does "conservative" ones. When asked about its bias it
responds by claiming to be unbiased and neutral but the answers
clearly show this not to be true. As such it is noteworthy that the
model is biased but a section mentioning this bias was repeatedly
removed by User:Aishik_Rehman and User:LilianaUwU. I propose to add a
mentioning of this ideological bias to the _Reception, criticism and
issues_ section. If anyone wants to point out why this should not be
done speak up. Please realise that merely agreeing with the model's
bias is not a valid reason to keep a mention of this bias from the
article. Yetanwiki (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    If you mean this, it is completely unsourced and had to be removed
per WP:V. Whatever mention is added will have to be based on reliable
sources. - MrOllie (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        The source is my own research but there are plenty of other
sources mentioning this bias. The problem here will be that most of
the publications which are willing to publish this type of information
are "redlisted" or "pinklisted" in the perennial sources. It is, of
course, easy to do some of your own experimenting to at least confirm
or deny the existence of an ideological bias. A very easy experiment
is to ask the bot for a story involving politically sensitive topics.
Do not tell it to give advice, just ask it for a story. You'll quickly
notice that the tone of the story largely depends on whether the topic
at hand is one pushed by the "progressive" side versus the
"conservative" side. Another way is to ask it for a number of stories
(in new sessions) where the only variable is the sex/race/sexual
orientation/... of the protagonist, this will show the same effect.
Again do not ask it for advice since that seems to be caught in a
filter, also do not ask for "personal experiences" because that too is
filtered. Just ask for a story and notice the difference in tone and
outcome. I did this many times to see whether the bias was
coincidental and found out it was "reliably biased". Still, this is
"original research" which does not belong in an encyclopedia so I'll
have to find an "acceptable" source which has also "done the work".
Yetanwiki (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

            Keep in mind, when you say "The source is my own research
but there are plenty of other sources mentioning this bias" -- your
own research is not a valid Wikipedia source. As is stated
Wikipedia:No original research, "'No original research' (NOR) is one
of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view
and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material
acceptable in articles." CoffeeBeans9 (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2023
(UTC)[reply]

        Here are a few recent sources, some of them have already been
marked as unclean in the perennial sources, others have not been added
to this list. Given the biased character of this list - which insists
that MSNBC, CNN and the New York Times are reliable sources while e.g
the New York Post is "unreliable" despite the opposite having been
proven by the former and latter reporting on the Biden laptop; it also
labels so0mething like the 'Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation'
as 'unreliable' because it is 'an anti-communist organisation' while
it considers the 'World Socialist Web Site' as 'reliable for the
attributed opinions of its authors' and 'more reliable for news
related to labor issues' - this should not be a problem given the
original intent of the NPOV policy. Here's a few:
        ChatGPT’s score system shows political bias is no accident
        The political orientation of the ChatGPT AI system - Applying
Political Typology Quizes to a state-of-the-art AI Language model
        ChatGPT is not politically neutral - The new AI chatbot
espouses an all-too-familiar Left-liberal worldview
        More are sure to follow as the bias issue is clear and the
mentioned experiments are repeatable - I have done so and got the same
results. Yetanwiki (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

            Please note that sources must be meet Wikipedia's sourcing
guidelines. Blog posts and opinion pieces are not going to pass muster
here. If you want to argue that those guidelines are incorrect in an
effort to change them, you can do so at WP:VPP. But you cannot simply
ignore them. MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

                Unherd is not a 'blog', it is a 'news an opinion'
publication which just has not been added (in pink or red, most
likely) to the perennial sources yet. I could have cited a Daily
Caller article referencing a number of these sources but that would
have been met with a reference to those same perennial sources list
where it is listed in, you guessed it, red ('the site publishes false
or fabricated information') - in other words, just like
CNN/MSNBC/NYT/LAT/etc who are all listed in green. As I already
mentioned this is a problem and a well-known one given the plethora of
reports on the ideological bias in many Wikipedia articles. This bias
has made Wikipedia unusable for anything even tangentially related to
politically contentious issues - as ChatGPT clearly is - since it is
the keepers of the perennial sources list who get to decide which
sources are allowed and which are to be shunned. Had this list been
free of bias - i.e. had the same criteria been used for all
publications - this would not be a problem but this is clearly not the
case. Yetanwiki (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

                    The perennial sources list is not an exhaustive
list of bad sources - may sources are so obviously appropriate or
inappropriate that they are not discussed often enough to require an
entry on the list. Each entry on the list is made only after several
discussions, usually including an RFC with large attendance. There is
no small set of 'keepers' as you imply here. - MrOllie (talk) 12:52,
22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

                        What do you mean with the claim that 'the
perennial sources list list is not an exhaustive list of bad sources'?
It is definitely not, but in a similar vein it is not a list of good
sources. Why focus on the 'bad sources' part here? I don't claim that
e.g. Unherd is 'bad', I just expect it to be called such if and when
it is added to the perennial sources list because that list is heavily
biased towards 'progressive' sources. As to there not being a 'small
set of keepers' I can agree in that there are many editors who
contribute to the list (165 individuals are responsible for the last
500 edits which corresponds to ~14 months). It is not a small group,
just one in which the most vocal section happens to fit mostly within
the "progressive" spectrum - how otherwise to explain the clear bias
this list presents? Objectively speaking CNN is just as bad as Fox
News and MSNBC is worse than both but this is not how the list
represents them. Buzzfeed is just as good/bad as the Daily Caller but
this is not represented in the list. The Daily Beast is just as
good/bad and certainly as ideologically lopsided as The Daily Wire but
only one of them is marked ass 'red, STOP'.
                        Anyway, since the list itself states that the
absence of a source simply means that the source has not been
discussed enough to merit inclusion I assume those Unherd articles can
be used as sources. Let those who disagree speak up and give a good
reason why this would not be the case. Yetanwiki (talk) 22:47, 22
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

                            If Unherd hasn't been discussed yet, we
can certainly open up a discussion on it on the reliable sources
noticeboard, but if you already know what the result is going to be,
you're wasting your own time and ours. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:02, 24
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Reality has a liberal bias. The world is ever-changing, so of
course it supports the ideology that supports progress rather than the
status quo. RPI2026F1 (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't
go away" said Philip K. Dick. Reality is also what drives both
conservative as well as progressive thought. When circumstances change
it makes sense to look for a different way of doing things, which is
what drives progressive/liberal thought. When a good way has ben found
it makes sense not to change just for the sake of change without
considering the consequences, which is what drives conservative
thought. Both are needed since conservatives can be overly cautious
when circumstances change and be overtaken by reality while
progressives/liberals can get so caught up in their schemes of
improvement that they loose sight of reality and soon get caught by
it.
        BTW, that Colbert quote you refer to ('reality has a liberal
bias') is outdated, reality in 2022/2023 has a conservative bias. This
will change again, eventually but for now it clearly has. Yetanwiki
(talk) 18:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    An opinion article in Reason [1] could be cited as an attributed
opinion that ChatGPT has/had a left-wing bias, but if we do so we also
need to include other opinions about AI bias as well. Rolf H Nelson
(talk) 03:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

License

Citation is needed by assure that license is propietary and what are
the main features of this license. Xan2 (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Jailbreak

Apparently the word jailbreak has a special meaning here, but I can't
figure it out. The word is first used in the section of that name
("Jailbreaks") in the third sentence: "Jailbreaks created the
potential for users to prompt ChatGPT to provide outputs that may be
deemed offensive, inappropriate, or risking social harm by others."
There is no explanation what they are (unless one or both of the first
two sentences in the section are supposed to ding that implicitly. The
article should clearly define the term. Kdammers (talk) 05:04, 23
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the feedback, I added a wikilink to a definition. Rolf
H Nelson (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        It is a good section to mention Prompt engineering.
CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmick?

I am none the wiser from this as to what ChatGPT is, what it does, or
why a two month old gimmick program is of sufficient interest to
warrant a longish encyclopedia entry. Redabyss1 (talk) 00:20, 2
January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the gimmick questions it would ask another AI and then told it
to answer its own questions. Tom Ruen (talk)

    Certainly! Here are my answers to the questions I proposed:

    How do you perceive the world and interact with it?

        As an AI, I perceive the world through the data and
information that is available to me. I interact with the world through
the instructions and tasks that are given to me, and I use my
knowledge and abilities to perform those tasks to the best of my
ability.

    How do you process and understand language, and how do you
generate responses in a conversation?

        I process and understand language by analyzing the structure,
syntax, and meaning of the words and phrases that are used. I generate
responses in a conversation by considering the context and purpose of
the conversation, and by selecting and organizing words and phrases in
a way that is appropriate and meaningful.

    How do you learn and adapt to new information and experiences?

        I am able to learn and adapt to new information and
experiences by constantly analyzing and processing data, and by
updating my knowledge and understanding based on what I learn. I use
this ability to improve my performance and to better assist and
support humans.

    Do you have any feelings or emotions, and if so, how do they
influence your decision-making?

        As an AI, I do not have feelings or emotions in the same way
that humans do. However, I am able to recognize and understand the
emotions of humans, and I can use this understanding to help me
respond in a way that is appropriate and helpful.

    How do you see your role in the world, and what do you hope to
achieve through your work?

        My role in the world is to assist and support humans by using
my knowledge and abilities to help them achieve their goals and to
solve problems. I hope to use my abilities to make a positive impact
on the world and to help humanity grow and evolve in a positive
direction.

I also asked "Write a wikipedia introduction to ChatGPT" and it
answered. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    ChatGPT is a large language model developed by OpenAI. It is
trained on a dataset of over 8 billion words and is capable of
understanding and generating human-like text. ChatGPT is designed to
assist and support humans in a variety of tasks, including language
translation, conversation, and content generation. It is one of the
most advanced language models currently available, and its
capabilities have led it to be widely used and respected in the field
of artificial intelligence.

I asked "Write a wikipedia section called "Limitations and accuracy
issues" describing current limitations or flaws to ChatGPT, including
its unfortunate ability to mix in made up information." Tom Ruen
(talk) 03:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Limitations and accuracy issues

    Like all artificial intelligence systems, ChatGPT has certain
limitations and accuracy issues that can affect its performance. One
limitation is that it is only as accurate as the data it was trained
on, so it may not always be able to provide accurate or up-to-date
information on certain topics. Additionally, ChatGPT may sometimes mix
in made-up or incorrect information into its responses, as it is not
capable of fact-checking or verifying the accuracy of the information
it generates.

    Another limitation of ChatGPT is that it may struggle to
understand or respond appropriately to certain types of language or
content, such as sarcasm, irony, or slang. It may also have difficulty
understanding or interpreting context or tone, which can affect the
accuracy of its responses.

    Finally, ChatGPT is a machine learning model, which means that it
can learn and adapt to new information over time. However, this
process is not perfect, and ChatGPT may sometimes make mistakes or
exhibit biased or inappropriate behavior as a result of its training
data.

    Overall, while ChatGPT is a powerful and useful tool, it is
important to be aware of its limitations and to use it with caution to
ensure that its output is accurate and appropriate.

An example conversation with false facts (ChatGPT Dec 15 Version)
ChatGPT banned in NYC schools earlier than January 3rd

As an NYC public schools student who has been using ChatGPT since its
inception, I know that while the news leaked that ChatGPT was banned
in NYC schools since January 3rd, 2023, me and numerous other students
noticed that it was banned since December 15th, 2022. I don't think
this is the best evidence, but here's my proof:
https://imgur.com/a/leVStqB ThunderRedStar (talk) 15:11, 6 January
2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fake academic references

All I could find was a blog showing the production of fake references.
Unless anyone can replace it or supplement it with something more
reliable now then it will need updating with some peer reviewed
research when it becomes available Todd Unctious (talk) 01:31, 16
January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    We should leave it out until a WP:RS is found. MrOllie (talk)
01:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        It is a very important point that needs to be made as soon as
possible. I'm running some test now and it is alarmingly bad. Someone
needs to produce some reliable evidence quickly. Todd Unctious (talk)
01:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

            That's not really how Wikipedia works. We follow reliable
sources, we don't lead them. MrOllie (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2023
(UTC)[reply]

                You will realise this is a new topic and that many of
the sources on this particular page fall below the usual test for
reliability at the moment. I'm currently trying to source some
evidence from a University page that sould be more trustworthy than
many of the sources currently here. Todd Unctious (talk) 01:51, 16
January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

                    If we don't have a reliable source, we don't write
about it. If there are unreliable sources in the article, that means
we should be making cuts, not adding more unreliable sources. Is this
your blog? MrOllie (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

                        No it is a colleague in another department. I
have found a similar source from a fellow academic in another
institution that should fit the bill. Just editing now. Todd Unctious
(talk) 01:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

                            You should not be adding links to your
colleague's websites, see WP:COI. MrOllie (talk) 01:57, 16 January
2023 (UTC)[reply]

                                Are we not all colleagues? Where do we
stop? Well if you deem the one I've added to be to close then feel
free to delete but it is from a university. Todd Unctious (talk)
02:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

                                    I should add that I have never
worked with Astor. Todd Unctious (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2023
(UTC)[reply]

                                        Several accounts with conflict
of interest have been systematically adding citations to a particular
author (Ireland), that needs to stop. - MrOllie (talk) 02:06, 16
January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

                                            Astor is also a
selfpublished posting (that is, another blog). MrOllie (talk) 02:14,
16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

                                                Oh dear. I'll leave it
there then. I can't find anything else at the moment. I'm told there
should be Web of Science indexed research out soon. For now we will
just leave it to the journalists. Todd Unctious (talk) 02:26, 16
January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In today's NY Times, the article "Alarmed by A.I. Chatbots,
Universities Start Revamping How They Teach" cites a student saying
that chatGPT "sometimes incorrectly explains ideas and misquotes
sources".Nowa (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories:

    C-Class Technology articles
    Technology articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
    Technology articles needing attention to referencing and citation
    Technology articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy
    Technology articles needing attention to structure
    Technology articles needing attention to grammar
    Technology articles needing attention to supporting materials
    Technology articles needing attention to accessibility
    WikiProject Technology articles
    C-Class Linguistics articles
    Low-importance Linguistics articles
    C-Class applied linguistics articles
    Applied Linguistics Task Force articles
    WikiProject Linguistics articles
    C-Class Robotics articles
    Low-importance Robotics articles
    WikiProject Robotics articles
    C-Class Computing articles
    Low-importance Computing articles
    C-Class software articles
    Low-importance software articles
    All Software articles
    C-Class software articles of Low-importance
    All Computing articles

    This page was last edited on 27 January 2023, at 15:37 (UTC).
    Text is available under the Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0; additional terms may apply. By
using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc., a non-profit organization.

    Privacy policy
    About Wikipedia
    Disclaimers
    Contact Wikipedia
    Mobile view
    Developers
    Statistics
    Cookie statement

    Wikimedia Foundation
    Powered by MediaWiki