“The discussion in the Wikipedia community that I’ve seen so far is…people are cautious in the sense that we’re aware that the existing models are not good enough but also intrigued because there seems like there’s a lot of possibility here,” Wales said. “I think we’re still a way away from: ‘ChatGPT, please write a Wikipedia entry about the empire state building’, but I don’t know how far away we are from that, certainly closer than I would have thought two years ago,” he said.
Wales says that as much as ChatGPT has gripped the world’s imagination over the past few weeks, his own tests of the technology show there are still plenty of flaws. “One of the issues with the existing ChatGPT is what they call in the field ‘hallucinating’ — I call it lying,” he said. “It has a tendency to just make stuff up out of thin air which is just really bad for Wikipedia — that’s just not OK. We’ve got to be really careful about that….”
But while full AI authorship is off the cards in the near-term, there’s already plenty of discussion at Wikipedia on what role AI technology could have in improving the encyclopaedia in the months ahead. “I do think there are some interesting opportunities for human assistance where if you had an AI that were trained on the right corpus of things — to say, for example here are two Wikipedia entries, check them and see if there are any statements that contradict each other and identify tensions where one article sems to be saying something slightly different to the other,” Wales said. “A human could detect this but you’d have to read both articles side by side and think it through — if you automate feeding it in so you get out hundreds of examples I think our community could find that quite useful.”
Wales says another problem is AI technology’s failure to spot internal contradictions within its responses. He once called out ChatGPT on this — “And it said, you’re right, I apologise for my error.”
