3 ms·

You can't give ChatGPT a Wikipedia article though.

by Kranar 4y ago

williamcotton 4y ago
Sure you can. The easiest way is to go to https://chat.openai.com/chat https://chat.openai.com/chat and paste in a Wikipedia article. There are more involved manners like this: https://github.com/williamcotton/transynthetical-engine/blob/main/src/query-engines/wikipedia.ts https://github.com/williamcotton/transynthetical-engine/blob...
- williamcotton 4y ago
  For example, I copied the "New York Mets" sidebar section from the Mets wikipedia into ChatGPT+ GPT-4 and then asked "What years did the Mets when the NL East division?" The New York Mets won the NL East Division titles in the following years: 1969, 1973, 1986, 1988, 2006, and 2015. This is correct, btw.
  - Kranar 4y ago
    You could also just ask it: "What years did the Mets when the NL East division?" Without any reference to anything and it will give you the correct answer as well. You have been duped into believing that ChatGPT reads websites. It doesn't.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - jki275 4y ago
      You missed what he said. He copied the actual data into chatgpt as part of the prompt, and it gave the correct information. without that data, it might, or might not, give correct info, and often it won't.
      - Kranar 4y ago
        You can't feed anything more than a fairly short Wikipedia article into ChatGPT, its context window isn't remotely close to big enough to do that. It also doesn't change the point that copying data has no effect. You could just ask ChatGPT what years the Mets won and it will tell you the correct answer. To test this, I pasted the Wikipedia information but I changed the data, I just gave ChatGPT incorrect information about the Mets, and then I asked it the same question. ChatGPT ignored the data I provided it and instead gave me the correct information, so what I pasted had no effect on its output.
        jki275 4y ago
        It might give you the correct answer. Or it might make something up. You don't ever know, and you can't know, because it doesn't know. It's not looking up the data in a source somewhere, it's making it up. If it happens to pick the right weights to make it up out of, you'll get correct data. Otherwise you won't. The fact that you try it and it works means nothing for somebody else trying it tomorrow. Obviously putting the data in and asking it the data is kind of silly. But you can put data into it and then ask it to provide more nuanced interpretations of the data you've given it, and it can do reasonably well doing that. People are using it to debug code, I've personally used the ghidra plugins to good effect -- the way that works is to feed in the whole function and then have chatgpt tell you what it can deduce about it. It generally provides reasonably useful interpretations.
        Kranar 4y ago
        Not exactly sure what you're arguing here but it seems to be going off topic. You can't give ChatGPT a Wikipedia article and ask it to give you facts based off of it. Ignoring its context window, even if you paste a portion of an article into ChatGPT, it will simply give you what it thinks it knows regardless of any article you paste into it. For example I just pasted a portion of the Wikipedia article about Twitter and asked ChatGPT who the CEO of Twitter is, and it said Parag Agrawal despite the fact that the Wikipedia article states Elon Musk is the CEO of Twitter. It completely ignored the contents of what I pasted and said what it knew based on its training. The person I was replying to claimed that if you give ChatGPT the complete context of a subject then ChatGPT will give you reliable information, otherwise it will "synthesize" information. A very simple demonstration shows that this is false. It's incredibly hard to get ChatGPT to correct itself if it was trained on false or outdated information. You can't simply correct or update ChatGPT by pasting information into it. As far as your other comments about making stuff up or being unreliable, I'm not sure how that has any relevance to this discussion.
    - williamcotton 4y ago
      https://github.com/williamcotton/empirical-philosophy/blob/main/articles/from-prompt-alchemy-to-prompt-engineering-an-introduction-to-analytic-agumentation.md https://github.com/williamcotton/empirical-philosophy/blob/m... You are very wrong about how these things work.
- Kranar 4y ago
  Yes, this is a common misconception. ChatGPT can not actually read URLs you give it. It does have some awareness of websites based on its training, so it can in some sense relate a URL you provide to it with its subject matter, but when you give ChatGPT a URL to summarize or discuss, it doesn't actually read that website in anyway.
- Kranar 4y ago
  Here is a link to a website that explains how ChatGPT doesn't actually read websites, but it pretends like it can: https://simonwillison.net/2023/Mar/10/chatgpt-internet-access/ https://simonwillison.net/2023/Mar/10/chatgpt-internet-acces...
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    I am not saying that you should copy a URL. I am saying that you should copy the content of a Wikipedia article.

You can't give ChatGPT a Wikipedia article though.

by Kranar 4y ago

You can't give ChatGPT a Wikipedia article though.

Sure you can. The easiest way is to go to https://chat.openai.com/chat https://chat.openai.com/chat and paste in a Wikipedia article. There are more involved manners like this: https://github.com/williamcotton/transynthetical-engine/blob/main/src/query-engines/wikipedia.ts https://github.com/williamcotton/transynthetical-engine/blob...

williamcotton 4y ago
For example, I copied the "New York Mets" sidebar section from the Mets wikipedia into ChatGPT+ GPT-4 and then asked "What years did the Mets when the NL East division?" The New York Mets won the NL East Division titles in the following years: 1969, 1973, 1986, 1988, 2006, and 2015. This is correct, btw.
- Kranar 4y ago
  You could also just ask it: "What years did the Mets when the NL East division?" Without any reference to anything and it will give you the correct answer as well. You have been duped into believing that ChatGPT reads websites. It doesn't.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - jki275 4y ago
    You missed what he said. He copied the actual data into chatgpt as part of the prompt, and it gave the correct information. without that data, it might, or might not, give correct info, and often it won't.
    - Kranar 4y ago
      You can't feed anything more than a fairly short Wikipedia article into ChatGPT, its context window isn't remotely close to big enough to do that. It also doesn't change the point that copying data has no effect. You could just ask ChatGPT what years the Mets won and it will tell you the correct answer. To test this, I pasted the Wikipedia information but I changed the data, I just gave ChatGPT incorrect information about the Mets, and then I asked it the same question. ChatGPT ignored the data I provided it and instead gave me the correct information, so what I pasted had no effect on its output.
      - jki275 4y ago
        It might give you the correct answer. Or it might make something up. You don't ever know, and you can't know, because it doesn't know. It's not looking up the data in a source somewhere, it's making it up. If it happens to pick the right weights to make it up out of, you'll get correct data. Otherwise you won't. The fact that you try it and it works means nothing for somebody else trying it tomorrow. Obviously putting the data in and asking it the data is kind of silly. But you can put data into it and then ask it to provide more nuanced interpretations of the data you've given it, and it can do reasonably well doing that. People are using it to debug code, I've personally used the ghidra plugins to good effect -- the way that works is to feed in the whole function and then have chatgpt tell you what it can deduce about it. It generally provides reasonably useful interpretations.
        Kranar 4y ago
        Not exactly sure what you're arguing here but it seems to be going off topic. You can't give ChatGPT a Wikipedia article and ask it to give you facts based off of it. Ignoring its context window, even if you paste a portion of an article into ChatGPT, it will simply give you what it thinks it knows regardless of any article you paste into it. For example I just pasted a portion of the Wikipedia article about Twitter and asked ChatGPT who the CEO of Twitter is, and it said Parag Agrawal despite the fact that the Wikipedia article states Elon Musk is the CEO of Twitter. It completely ignored the contents of what I pasted and said what it knew based on its training. The person I was replying to claimed that if you give ChatGPT the complete context of a subject then ChatGPT will give you reliable information, otherwise it will "synthesize" information. A very simple demonstration shows that this is false. It's incredibly hard to get ChatGPT to correct itself if it was trained on false or outdated information. You can't simply correct or update ChatGPT by pasting information into it. As far as your other comments about making stuff up or being unreliable, I'm not sure how that has any relevance to this discussion.
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    https://github.com/williamcotton/empirical-philosophy/blob/main/articles/from-prompt-alchemy-to-prompt-engineering-an-introduction-to-analytic-agumentation.md https://github.com/williamcotton/empirical-philosophy/blob/m... You are very wrong about how these things work.
Kranar 4y ago
Yes, this is a common misconception. ChatGPT can not actually read URLs you give it. It does have some awareness of websites based on its training, so it can in some sense relate a URL you provide to it with its subject matter, but when you give ChatGPT a URL to summarize or discuss, it doesn't actually read that website in anyway.
Kranar 4y ago
Here is a link to a website that explains how ChatGPT doesn't actually read websites, but it pretends like it can: https://simonwillison.net/2023/Mar/10/chatgpt-internet-access/ https://simonwillison.net/2023/Mar/10/chatgpt-internet-acces...
- williamcotton 4y ago
  I am not saying that you should copy a URL. I am saying that you should copy the content of a Wikipedia article.