- 6,968
- 6,751
How do you even use ChatGPT as a source for calcs/debates in the first place? "I had AI check my work. Trust me?"
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
AI and ChatGPT Concerns
- Thread starter Flashlight237
- Start date
- Status
- 165,203
- 72,181
Fandom is considering to begin using A.I. of their own, but has not set up specific standard directives for or ways to use it yet, as far as I am aware.
See here for what they have told us so far:
Anyway, I do not think that we should allow people to get lazy and avoid doing research, as the A.I. recurrently gives wrong references and answers.
I am open for sensible input from our staff members regarding whether or not it can be used as a starting point if its references are investigated afterwards.
I am also not aware of how good it is at producing reliable calculations that would be easily overviewed for our calc group members to properly evaluate, but suspect that it would likely not be satisfactory in this regard.
See here for what they have told us so far:
Anyway, I do not think that we should allow people to get lazy and avoid doing research, as the A.I. recurrently gives wrong references and answers.
I am open for sensible input from our staff members regarding whether or not it can be used as a starting point if its references are investigated afterwards.
I am also not aware of how good it is at producing reliable calculations that would be easily overviewed for our calc group members to properly evaluate, but suspect that it would likely not be satisfactory in this regard.
- 165,203
- 72,181
- 29,875
- 25,012
Seriously? People are using ChatGPT in debates?
Are there any examples of this on here?
Are there any examples of this on here?
- 4,222
- 2,247
- Thread starter
- #45
To address these points, in the OP, I had put in text for an advisory notice against using AI as a reference.
I generally prefer an advisory approach myself, as anything further to me might make things escalate a little quickly.
- 4,222
- 2,247
- Thread starter
- #46
Let's see... There's this calc that used ChatGPT as a reference: https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Hagane_no_Saiyajin/Vaporization_of_Quartz_Glass_Value
Then there's this CRT I did which I got Word of God from... But part of Word of God used ChatGPT, so that's a mistake I've made.: https://vsbattles.com/threads/grey-goo-reassessment.146047/
Those are two examples I know of. It's mainly a bunch of backbone-y nonsense.
- 6,968
- 6,751
I mean, whether or not the user themselves or an AI they use gets wrong information, it gets peer-reviewed in the end nonetheless.
- 29,875
- 25,012
Yeah... I think we can safely prohibit using ChatGPT as a source. There will be other sources out there on the internet.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 21,597
- 19,095
It's not as though this is foolproof, though, to be absolutely fair. Human error is very real and happens frequently enough that using citations generated by an AI would be worthy of a notice up, somewhere, saying "do not be very very dumb".
- 32,811
- 38,005
Jesus ******* Christ boys. It's over. AI will soon replace us all.
- 165,203
- 72,181
I personally agree with these evaluations.
- 165,203
- 72,181
So would a version of the text draft that Flashlight237 wrote above be useful for our purposes here?
"It is currently generally prohibited to use information obtained from chatbots (for example ChatGPT) and other A.I. devices as the information 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 whenever possible."
"It is currently generally prohibited to use information obtained from chatbots (for example ChatGPT) and other A.I. devices as the information 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 whenever possible."
- 4,222
- 2,247
- Thread starter
- #53
Yeah, that's part of the issue; you'll never know who would fall for it and who wouldn't. Then again, I don't think an AI is capable of watching the latest episode of Spongebob or Total Drama or whatever decides to pop up on TV. I would hope nobody resorts to having AI get the receipts for them in that regard; otherwise, call me immature, but I think that would wind up being a skill issue.
Mr. Bambu
Suffer-Not-Injustice Bambu
VS Battles
Joke Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Silver Supporter
- 21,597
- 19,095
I could agree to that, after some consideration on the thread, aye. I don't think we ought to take math advice from a bot that can be convinced that 2 + 2 = 5.
- 29,875
- 25,012
Looks sufficient to me.
Experiment12
Username Only- 263
- 118
In my opinion, it is better to ban the use of ChatGPT in vsbattles, because after all there will be an impact such as calculations and argumentation problems, it will become a dunning Kruger effect and Logical Fallacy, maybe the impact will be big, if not banned. Sorry, I'm just being honest here, I don't want this forum to get messy (even though I'm not a staff member). 
- 4,222
- 2,247
- Thread starter
- #57
I respect your concerns. Looks like we're going for a reference/debate ban on ChatGPT if the modification s are correct. That's how it seems at least.In my opinion, it is better to ban the use of ChatGPT in vsbattles, because after all there will be an impact such as calculations and argumentation problems, it will become a dunning Kruger effect and Logical Fallacy, maybe the impact will be big, if not banned. Sorry, I'm just being honest here, I don't want this forum to get messy (even though I'm not a staff member).
- 13,900
- 5,395
I can understand not using it as a source for references, but everyone saying that it can’t assist in calculations is just a bit of a silly concept
There’s literally no way to cheat a calculation. If it’s going to get evaluated then it’ll be declared right or wrong.
“It can be wrong sometimes tho” is not an argument in the slightest when it needs to be fact checked before being added to profiles in the first place.
There’s literally no way to cheat a calculation. If it’s going to get evaluated then it’ll be declared right or wrong.
“It can be wrong sometimes tho” is not an argument in the slightest when it needs to be fact checked before being added to profiles in the first place.
- 311
- 227
I agree with this, you mathematically and physically cannot cheat math, therefore i think using it for calcs is fine. However, if you're referencing very specific information (ie: density of a specific star) then you should source where you got it from, which ai like chatGPT can give you the source it used.
- 10,502
- 11,574
I'm still more in favour of something like
I feel like even today AI has potentially useful applications and it is steadily advancing. Instead of just prohibiting it, telling people to use it with proper care seems more future proof.
- 311
- 227
I agree FRA
- 5,968
- 4,164
Regarding the calc, tools such as ChatGPT is somewhat reliable if you give proper prompt. However, if you does not give proper prompt, such tools have no better than average calculator because of tools' misunderstanding like other misunderstanding of prompt by AI tools.
I agree with this. AI is a tool to assist human and it actually makes texting work more efficient.
- 19,652
- 15,994
Banning AI for stuff like art, editing summaries or the like I think is fine.
But for a ban on math I don't get. Since it's just a worse Wolfram Alpha
But for a ban on math I don't get. Since it's just a worse Wolfram Alpha
- 311
- 227
I was under the impression Wolfram Alpha was actually pretty good, but its even stuff that it can't do
- 11,227
- 12,607
I'm imagining it; sounds pretty cool. Give me more DB supporter tears.
AHEM, moving on from that though, the problem with using AI for art is that it just wouldn't be specific enough for the purpose suggested in this thread by multiple users. Characters with low quality or simply nonexistent art would probably be obscure enough that AI wouldn't have omnomnom'd enough data to create anything resembling good rendition of them. So you'd have to rely on getting it just right by trying multiple times, and even then you're probably not gonna get exactly what you were looking for. Also, and this might be just me, but AI art looks uncanny as **** a lot of the time, even when it is technically apt.
As for debating and translations, those should be outright barred in accordance with what people have already said about them. Math help? I'm neutral on it. Thems be my two cents.
- 11,227
- 12,607
Also I'd just like to point out that there are multiple normal users commenting on a staff thread without requesting permission, and not all of them are providing solid info. So stop that, otherwise my ratchety bones will become crankier than usual.
- 19,652
- 15,994
Wolfram is awesome, but my point was that ChatGPT would just be a worse version of that. It giving you like, possible math tips is fine. You just ha e to show the ability to do the formulas and calculations given for a calc.
- 30,073
- 31,333
Using GPTChat or AI's for debating purposes sounds pretty iffy. And I basically agree with what KLOL said above.
- 13,900
- 5,395
Earlier in the thread a staff member did say that there was no problem with it
but anyways if that’s how it is then I’d like to request permission to speak here more, since I still have things to say.
- 4,222
- 2,247
- Thread starter
- #70
If you're talking me, that was a specific person who had a good point of view.
Yeah. Indian Youtube math tutorials exist for a reason.
- 11,227
- 12,607
That goes for one person. Not every person.
You haven't really provided anything I'd call crucial in this thread. And that's kinda the impetus for allowing anyone that isn't staff to comment here, at all.
- 4,222
- 2,247
- Thread starter
- #72
I dunno, dude's been trying to make the case for AI from what I've read.
- 165,203
- 72,181
This suggestion seems perfectly fine to me.
- 9,060
- 9,334
The best stance to take here imo
- 4,222
- 2,247
- Thread starter
- #76
On one hand, I can understand DT's POV, but on the other hand, my point on having people gather info from reliable sources (ex. .edu sites and Researchgate) should still stand if we want people to do their research.
- 10,502
- 11,574
I'm ok with listing some guidelines on reliable sources somewhere. In fact, we could probably add a section for gathering useful ones on some calculation page. Like, maybe restructuring our section on calculators and utilities.
- 4,222
- 2,247
- Thread starter
- #78
That works.
- 6,490
- 1,200
The problem with that though is that not many people know which websites to get their research from, and often times those websites will need you to pay money or be part of an institution to get the needed research
- Status
