AI and ChatGPT Concerns

[Flashlight237]

So, ChatGPT is repeatedly used as a source, and even I fell for it myself. I think I should probably put the use of ChatGPT up for debate before it festers.

AIs are finicky tools. They usually if not always rely on people feeding them content, as I've personally witnessed with AI art theft. This will lead to reliability concerns. When trying to get translations, for example, I would try and use dictionaries (Jisho and Wiktionary for example) or seek human translation help (Either from the wiki's translation thread or from r/translator on Reddit). Machines can very easily take things for granted, even a machine as good as Manabu (which isn't working all that well rn).

I think the best course of action is to put an advisory around ChatGPT and other bots/AIs. A ban would be very unwise since people like to use AIs as a joke, but there should be guidances on avoiding AI usage. Something like this:

It is generally advised to avoid information obtained from chatbots (ex. ChatGPT) and other AI devices as the info they provide may be unreliable. It is best to research information (ideally from .org, .edu, or .gov sites, or academic libraries like Academia, Science Direct, and Researchgate) or ask for human input when possible.

So yeah, something like that. Hope this can be discussed.

 

[KLOL506]

Damn, didn't know ChatGPT was actually used for debates and to obtain ideas about feats, such a horrible skill issue. Oh wait, I did. And it's disgusting to look at sometimes.

As for AI? Yeah, nuke that AI art bullshit, can't stand the sight of that thing. Multi-fingered abominations deserve the incinerator.

Like, actually imagine if ChatGPT was used to try and downplay Goku just for the hell of it.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

What if you used ChatGPT for grammar or something.... Or even for it to help make a summary of a character?

 

[KLOL506]

What if you used ChatGPT for grammar or something.... Or even for it to help make a summary of a character?

Nope, still a skill issue.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

Nope, still a skill issue.

Mmm ... Well then, no translations as that's ai (Deepl/Google translate) as well, same with grammar checks Ai's, or same with image render ai... And more

Tho I do understand what you mean but still

 

[ShakeResounding]

Best to avoid the GPTsweep while we can. I heavily agree with this.

Edit: Not staff, my b

 

[Flashlight237]

Best to avoid the GPTsweep while we can. I heavily agree with this.

Edit: Not staff, my b

You're cool. Lol, GPTsweep. Good one. But yeah, I think it's a good idea.

 

[KLOL506]

Mmm ... Well then, no translations as that's ai (Deepl/Google translate) as well, same with grammar checks Ai's, or same with image render ai... And more

Pretty sure we're already running on thin ice with DeepL aren't we? We have rules for having stuff translated by actual humans here, but we're running on a massive shortage of that so...

We already forbid using Google Translate for our translations, so not much to think about on that. Only reason DeepL is still here is because once or twice it'll prolly repeat the same stuff as our translators here. Even then, I'm a bit ehhh about it.

 

[Adem_Warlock69]

This only applies to using it for translations?

 

[KLOL506]

This only applies to using it for translations?

Not just that, it applies to using it for anything else really, the math-related stuff, the sourcing stuff, art-related stuff and whatnot.

 

[Adem_Warlock69]

Not just that, it applies to using it for anything else really, the math-related stuff, the sourcing stuff, art-related stuff and whatnot.

People have been using it for calcs? I mean, I don't quite see the problem with that, since they'd still need to be actually evaluated, anyhow
And does the art-related stuff extend to like Versus Threads? Don't think anyone is gonna put AI-art in actual pages, since it won't be official

 

[KLOL506]

People have been using it for calcs?

Not as far as I can tell, no.

I mean, I don't quite see the problem with that, since they'd still need to be actually evaluated, anyhow

What's the point if the CGMs will reject the calc on that basis alone?

And does the art-related stuff extend to like Versus Threads? Don't think anyone is gonna put AI-art in actual pages, since it won't be official

Yeah, since it encroaches copyright and theft territory. Better to use actual official artwork or fanarts drawn by actual human hands.

 

[Adem_Warlock69]

What's the point if the CGMs will reject the calc on that basis alone?

I don't know if it can be make valid calcs, but if it can, I don't see why we shouldn't allow it for calc-creation and the like

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

Pretty sure we're already running on thin ice with DeepL aren't we?

Not really... The official translation is to help clarify and confirm translations just too make it more reliable, deepl is still reliable enough to use on its own... Even Google translate is

We already forbid using Google Translate for our translations, so not much to think about on that. Only reason DeepL is still here is because once or twice it'll prolly repeat the same stuff as our translators here. Even then, I'm a bit ehhh about it.

We allow translation ai's for translations that don't need extra clarification

 

[ZillertheBucko]

I mean I feel like it's fair to use AI to assist with a calculation, especially considering that it's going to be evaluated by a calc group member regardless
there's not really any way to fake a calc, so I could definitely see the utility in people using gpt4 to do a calc and then have it evaluated by a human. Worst case scenario, it just gets tossed out because it's wrong, since no matter if a human made it or not, it's gonna need a proper evaluation.

 

[MonkeyOfLife]

It takes no effort to write a summary (And those aren't even mandatory), yet people have to rely on a A.I for that pity?

I don't know what to type , was going to try get help from ai... I guess nevermind then

They aren't mandatory? still... Tho

 

[DontTalkDT]

Anything AI produced needs to be checked by a human for correctness. Beyond that I don't care what it's used for.

Yeah, since it encroaches copyright and theft territory. Better to use actual official artwork or fanarts drawn by actual human hands.

Y'know, I really don't understand why AI art would be more stealing that using official or fanarts without permission. Can it really be more copyrighted than a creation from a regular artist?

Personally, I really don't mind AI art for fun and games stuff, vs-threads and other not important forum stuff.

 

[KLOL506]

Y'know, I really don't understand why AI art would be more stealing that using official or fanarts without permission. Can it really be more copyrighted than a creation from a regular artist?

Personally, I really don't mind AI art for fun and games stuff, vs-threads and other not important forum stuff.

Better safe than sorry I suppose.

 

[Hagane_no_Saiyajin]

Honestly, I used ChatGPT for my calc because I kept running into roadblocks when finding the values I needed, now the only issue I'm facing is that for the sources I'm referring to: one of them is ridiculously long, one of them you need to pay read, and the third I can't seem to find

 

[Psychomaster35]

I’ve known ChatGPT was used for cheating on school essays, but using it for sources in debating (Especially since AIs aren’t always accurate)?

 

[ZillertheBucko]

I’ve known ChatGPT was used for cheating on school essays, but using it for sources in debating (Especially since AIs aren’t always accurate)?

Nobody actually uses it for coming up with arguments, but I’d say it’s fair to use it for calculation help, given that it’s kinda good at it
Of course, only gpt-4 is really effective, the previous models are just really bad in general

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

At least once a day when I check social media, I see one new post about ChatGPT giving objectively wrong answers to questions people ask it (I've tested this myself, it's pretty easy to find gaps in its knowledge if you ask it things you personally know a lot about). In short, it's better at pretending it has an accurate answer, rather than giving actual good answers, so it has no place in VS debating, regardless of subject.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

At least once a day when I check social media, I see one new post about ChatGPT giving objectively wrong answers to questions people ask it (I've tested this myself, it's pretty easy to find gaps in its knowledge if you ask it things you personally know a lot about). In short, it's better at pretending it has an accurate answer, rather than giving actual good answers, so it has no place in VS debating, regardless of subject.

It’s gonna have to be evaluated by humans regardless
And besides, hallucinating answers is far far less of a problem with gpt4

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

It’s gonna have to be evaluated by humans regardless
And besides, hallucinating answers is far far less of a problem with gpt4

Every week I hear the same "last week's AI sucked, but this new AI is so much better!" and every time it's the same uncanny valley/blatant misinformation as last week. An AI fundamentally cannot perform better than a human in logical reasoning because that will always rely on human input. So just cut out the middle man and do the research yourself.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't GPT-4 paid only as of now? Seems like we'd run into the ethical issue of VS debating become paywalled if we let people **** with AI like this.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Every week I hear the same "last week's AI sucked, but this new AI is so much better!" and every time it's the same uncanny valley/blatant misinformation as last week. An AI fundamentally cannot perform better than a human in logical reasoning because that will always rely on human input. So just cut out the middle man and do the research yourself.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't GPT-4 paid only as of now? Seems like we'd run into the ethical issue of VS debating become paywalled if we let people **** with AI like this.

I don't know what the deal is but I've already asked it to do a simple feat calc, and it consistently got similar answers to humans that did it
if it's just gonna be evaluated anyways then there's no point in suppressing gpt calcs.

 

[Ped2018]

Every week I hear the same "last week's AI sucked, but this new AI is so much better!" and every time it's the same uncanny valley/blatant misinformation as last week. An AI fundamentally cannot perform better than a human in logical reasoning because that will always rely on human input. So just cut out the middle man and do the research yourself.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't GPT-4 paid only as of now? Seems like we'd run into the ethical issue of VS debating become paywalled if we let people **** with AI like this.

Doesn't matter, everything that comes out of the AI is gonna have to be checked by humans before it's accepted here.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Everything needs to be checked by humans, but we need to have standards on what we allow for sources. A computer algorithm that regularly produces wrong information should not be within those standards.

 

[Experiment12]

I’ve known ChatGPT was used for cheating on school essays, but using it for sources in debating (Especially since AIs aren’t always accurate)?

Sorry for bothering, I am also a bot creator, I took Apikey from ChatGPT. And the goal is that ChatGPT or A.I can't answer death-battle questions I'm pretty sure, they just answer general questions only.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Anything AI produced needs to be checked by a human for correctness. Beyond that I don't care what it's used for.

I'm in this camp. I don't really care if an AI is used for translations or artwork for a page that might not otherwise have some. Means fuckall to me.

That said, if you're sourcing your arguments from the AI you're bound for failure, methinks.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Everything needs to be checked by humans, but we need to have standards on what we allow for sources. A computer algorithm that regularly produces wrong information should not be within those standards.

...are you serious?
You do realize that humans regularly make trash calcs all the time that get rejected every day?

 

[Flashlight237]

...are you serious?
You do realize that humans regularly make trash calcs all the time that get rejected every day?

At least they try to do the math themselves.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

At least they try to do the math themselves.

doesn't really matter, as long as the math gets done
AI is just a tool to make calcs easier
if it gets rejected, then so be it, but if it gets accepted, then I guess a lot of time was saved
I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to speed things up when possible

 

[Robo432343]

At least they try to do the math themselves.

math that is wrong

 

[Duedate8898]

What exactly is the problem we're having with ChatGPT?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

That's variable, some a lot more reasonable than others. In essence:

• Some gripes have been raised about AI art. While the moral debate rages on about whether AI generating art by consuming vast amounts of other artwork as reference material is an acceptable thing or not, I don't think it's our place to deny it on the grounds of being AI generated alone.
• Apparently some users are using AI to source citations from, which is a problem and should not be acceptable- however, a specific rule disbarring it seems unnecessary, since the AI will just be... wrong. I've tested it out of curiosity, the AI isn't capable of doing things like that, not accurately- but it will generate false citations, so make of that what you will.
• Another thing is using the AI to do calculations. I suggest users doing this to just use a calculator as it's functionally the same thing, but if users prefer the AI and if it works then I don't mind personally.
• Finally, translations. Another area where it is simply "If it's wrong we won't use it, if it's right it doesn't matter that an AI did it". I imagine this one is probably marginally worse than just using Google Translate but what do I know.

 

[Mariogoods]

It should be noted that ChatGPT could give false references of certain statement or false statements, including but not limited to websites which is seemingly correct but does not exist. I have used ChatGPT to ask some historical question but ChatGPT gives me the wrong answer despite it is hard to be found by people who don't know said history.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

It should be noted that ChatGPT could give false references of certain statement or false statements, including but not limited to websites which is seemingly correct but does not exist. I have used ChatGPT to ask some historical question but ChatGPT gives me the wrong answer despite it is hard to be found by people who don't know said history.

Aye, true enough. Maybe a rule against ChatGPT generated references would be good, but like... would such a rule really carry any more penalties than those already presented for falsifying scans/references (that is, a ban)? The simple fact that a chatbot is writing them up for the person doesn't matter much to me. The only instance I can envision where that rule may be relevant is if a person tries to earnestly argue that they thought it was reliable somehow, and at that point they ought to be banned for incompetence.

 

[Mariogoods]

Aye, true enough. Maybe a rule against ChatGPT generated references would be good, but like... would such a rule really carry any more penalties than those already presented for falsifying scans/references (that is, a ban)? The simple fact that a chatbot is writing them up for the person doesn't matter much to me. The only instance I can envision where that rule may be relevant is if a person tries to earnestly argue that they thought it was reliable somehow, and at that point they ought to be banned for incompetence.

I agree. Also, I feel that a notice to explain that AI tools such as ChatGPT could generate such content is useful, similar to the upcoming rule/guideline regarding AIGC in Wikipedia. It is about a further explanation of our current rule.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

Imagine using AI to debate for you instead of just doing it yourself. Couldn't be me.

 

[NHTkenshin2]

Me who doesn't even have ChatGPT in their country, thankfully.