Jump to content

Talk:Chatbot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed Outline and Sources for Modernizing the Article

[edit]

Hi everyone,

Following up on the responses to the section above and, in general to discussions with User:S0091, User:Cosmia Nebula, User:Grayfell, and others, I wanted to offer a concrete outline proposal for improving the article in a way that reflects both historical and modern chatbot systems... using only reliable sources.

I am just proposing to repair the existing page through better structure and sourcing. I hope that you find this outline to be a a good starting point for collaborative editing.

Source-First Approach

[edit]

I want to underscore User:Grayfell’s point. We should absolutely ground this rewrite in high-quality, independent sources. I’ve started from Jurafsky & Martin because @Cosmia Nebula recommended it and it’s widely cited and neutral. Others with academic access may be able to expand this bibliography.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. I’m happy and excited to contribute and want to repeat that I am not very experienced and want to work collaboratively to gradually update this article section by section.

Also... Disclosure: I’ve used ChatGPT to help brainstorm structure and identify academic sources, but I’m verifying and citing everything manually.

Thanks, ArturoFalck (talk) 1 July 2025 ArturoFalck (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god. Start over from scratch. Use your own voice or don't bother contributing to Wikipedia.
If you cannot be bothered to write this proposal yourself, than I'm not going to bother reading it. Wikipedia is built off of individual editor's contributions. If we cannot trust that you, specifically, are the one writing this, than you're merely using techno-hype to justify sock puppetry. I will especially emphasize that ChatGPT is absolutely terrible at finding sources, and Wikipedia is plagued with misrepresented sources due to well-intention ed editors who wrongly think this is a valid time-saver. Grayfell (talk) 23:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback @Grayfell but I wish you were a bit more patient with me (and others on this talk page). I just spent an hour writing the proposed outline that you summarily removed from a talk page. I understand concerns about the use of AI tools, and I want to clarify that I am using ChatGPT only to brainstorm structure and help identify peer-reviewed sources, which I then verify myself. I’m not using it to write article content or bypass editorial responsibility.
I’m also aware of Wikipedia’s policies on sourcing, original research, and independence. That’s why I’m working transparently in the open. (I am planning on linking to my drafts from this talk page, and clearly disclosing what tools I’m using).
I recognize that tone can sometimes get sharp in these discussions, but I’d really like to keep things collaborative. This is my first serious attempt to contribute, and I’m learning from the process.
— ArturoFalck (talk) ArturoFalck (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky for you, your proposal is still here, it's just collapsed. Did you also use ChatGPT to write this response?
Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or hype. Start with one or two reliable sources at a time. Read them yourself. You don't have to read them very closely, but don't just rely on an LLM summary. Propose small, actionable changes based on what you have read. You are far too green to be proposing drastic reorganizations of controversial articles. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please tone it down @Grayfell
You are bashing on me when all I am trying to do is to be helpful.
You are right, I am far too green... but this article is very bad. I do appreciate your latest more constructive suggestions and am happy to follow your lead... just keep in mind that we are people here, with feelings.
How about you start a new section with the proposal for the modernizing of this article?
I am happy to collaborate and, obviously don't have the experience to lead this effort. ArturoFalck (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all,
I’ve drafted a possible new section in my sandbox: User:ArturoFalck/Chatbot-LLMSection. It focuses specifically on LLM-based chatbots and draws only from reliable sources (e.g., Jurafsky & Martin, ACL/NeurIPS papers, Bender et al.).
This is still early. Feedback and improvements are welcome. I’ll hold off on any live edits to the article until there’s some consensus.
Also, There may not even be consensus on the outline that I proposed above, so, please feel free to edit it as well and if so, help me find a place for the section that I drafted in my sandbox.
Thanks again,
ArturoFalck ArturoFalck (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you are finding out, the Wikipedia community takes a very dim view of the use of LLM generated text, whether it be in articles, in drafts, or on talk pages. I would urge you to discontinue the use of any such tools. I pulled up your first cited source, and I couldn't find the rather specific claim made in the sandbox draft in the citation - I assume this was an AI hallucination. MrOllie (talk) 00:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MrOllie... Please read it again. I've added hyperlinks to the sources and some quotes to back up my references.
I totally understand the skepticism about the use of LLM generated text. But to outright discourage the use of LLMs (particularly in an article about them) is silly. For example, I am new to wikipedia, I would have never known that you discourage the type of quotes that I naturally use... but ChatGPT helped me format them correctly.
I also want to say that I really appreciate your positive vibe.
thanks, ArturoFalck (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked again, the citation still does not actually support the content. You may find the concerns of the Wikipedia community 'silly', but you should still respect community norms, particularly as a newcomer to this community. There are lots of other sites where people can find AI-generated text, and there will be more every day. The Wikipedia community prefers to remain a project based on human writing and human effort. MrOllie (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you don't find in the content. Can you be more specific?
And I agree with you... I'm sorry for my bit of venting... I just felt attacked for using a tool that helped me understand a culture that I don't know yet. ArturoFalck (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I pulled up your first cited source, and I couldn't find the rather specific claim made in the sandbox draft in the citation. MrOllie (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie, I don't know if you are being helpful or just trying to be mean. (I am not trying to pick a fight, I just can't tell your tone from the short curt answers.)
Here is the line from my draft:
Jurafsky and Martin (2023) describe LLMs as systems that acquire "knowledge about language and the world from vast amounts of text."
here is the source:
https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/slp3/
Here is the specific place where that quote comes from:
https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/slp3/10.pdf
bottom of page 1 of chapter 10.. Maybe I don't know how to cite references correctly?? ArturoFalck (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My tone is irrelevant, what is relevant is that you understand and follow the Wikipedia community's expectations on use of AI and on sticking to sources. What you are quoting here is was not what your draft said at the time that I made the comment. At the time that I made the comment it stated Jurafsky and Martin (2023) describe this shift as a move away from hand-crafted rules and dialog management frameworks toward statistical language modeling at scale.. That is a claim that does not appear in the cited source. Where did this claim come from? Either you made it up or the AI did. Which was it? MrOllie (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order for this article to become less bad it's going to have to go beyond bland puffery. ChatGPT loves bland puffery, so using a chatbot here is, at best, kicking the can down the road and making more work for other people. If you rely on ChatGPT, even just to find sources, you're missing out on what reliable sources are actually saying.
As one example of the problem, I don't accept that ChatGPT is trustworthy for finding sources which are unflattering to OpenAI. To avoid a criticism section, unflattering sources should be proportionately included throughout the article.
To put it another way, if you want to reorganize the article, you will need to find sources which ChatGPT is specifically bad at finding.
I trust that by appealing to our shared humanity, you have agreed to stop using ChatGPT for these discussions. Otherwise, I have no way of knowing which parts of your comments are from a real person, and which were just prompted to sound plausible. This is why using ChatGPT is such a nightmare for Wikipedia editors. I don't care if your wording is clunky or you make typos. I only care about what you have to say, and only barely. I do not care how good you think you are at writing prompts, nor am I impressed by the output of those prompts so far.
Grayfell (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arturo, Greyfell and MrOllie are correct regarding using LLMs on Wikipedia. Per WP:AITALK LLM-generated comments: Comments that are obviously generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar AI technology may be struck or collapsed. You can read the discussion that led to that here. The sentiment is similar for using LLMs for creating content. Many experienced editors have played around with using LMMs and the feedback so far is it is not good and that's being kind. At the very least you have be very specific in the instructions, feed it the sources you want to use, have it tell you which sources it is using for each statement so you can validate source to text integrity because it will synthesize sources (see WP:SYNTH) or completely make stuff up and a lot of the prose is otherwise unsuitable so it requires a lot of cleanup to meet Wikipedia's standards.
You can also see the visceral response here and continued here when the Wikimedia Foundation wanted to use AI to generate summaries of articles. Editors found the summaries were inaccurate and poorly written among other issues. The WMF ended up putting the project on hold due to the feedback which made the news (ex https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/06/yuck-wikipedia-pauses-ai-summaries-after-editor-revolt/). S0091 (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voice AI terminology

[edit]

One thing I wanted to mention: I was recently at the MIT Imagination in Action AI summit organized by John Werner, and people there seemed to be using “Voice AI” pretty consistently for this category.

That made me wonder whether “Voice AI” may be the better umbrella term than “voice-first conversational AI,” at least in current industry usage.

Either way, I think this page still needs a lot of work. I’m happy to help improve it, but I’d appreciate guidance from more experienced editors on how best to approach the structure and sourcing. ArturoFalck (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There could be some content on voice aspects, for example explaining that chatbots increasingly have a voice mode. It doesn't have to be extensive, perhaps one paragraph or a subsection of the section "Applications". Terms like "voice AI" or "voice mode" seem ok to use, "voice-first conversational AI" might be overly sophisticated. Alenoach (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure

[edit]

Some of the content of the "Applications" section could be split into a new section which we could name "Concerns" or "Societal impacts", which could also include "Impact on jobs" and "Impact on the environment".

Also, the "Limitations" section is a little awkward. Perhaps we should instead have a "Technology" section before "Applications", which could be a good place to explain how the different kinds of chatbots work. It's important to clarify the differences between LLMs, rudimentary chatbots like ELIZA and chatbots that fetch responses from a database. Alenoach (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Add the Wiktionary entry: botsplaining + make the Wikipedia page

[edit]
==English==

===Etymology===
{{blend|en|bot|explaining}}, or from {{affix|en|botsplain|-ing}}.

===Pronunciation===
* {{enPR|bōts-plānʹĭng}}
* {{IPA|en|/ˈboʊtsˌpleɪnɪŋ/|a=GA}}
* {{IPA|en|/ˈbəʊtsˌpleɪnɪŋ/|a=RP}}
* {{rhymes|en|eɪnɪŋ|s=3}}
* {{hyphenation|en|bots|plain|ing}}

===Noun===
{{wp}}
{{en-noun|-}}

# {{lb|en|slang|pejorative}} The act of a bot, AI, or automated system giving an explanation that is unnecessary, overly simplistic, condescending, or oblivious to the listener’s existing knowledge—often by restating obvious information or misjudging context.
# # {{lb|en|by extension}} Any explanation (especially by an automated or semi-automated agent) that confidently presents incomplete, incorrect, or irrelevant information in a way that assumes authority.

====Translations====
{{trans-top}}
* Greek: {{t|el|μποτοεξήγηση|f}}
{{trans-bottom}}

______

    • 2023, “Botsplaining is the new mansplaining: when AI explains things you already know,” in Towards Data Science, Medium, 15 May, →URL.
      Botsplaining happens when an AI confidently explains

~2026-25314-28 (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply] 

It's not a mere internet slang because chatbots affect everyday live with their suggestions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-25314-28 (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The concept may deserve a Wiktionary page, but your entry seems AI-generated, and I don't find the "Towards Data Science" source you mention, so it looks like it can't be copy-pasted into Wiktionary. Alenoach (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chatbot&oldid=1351421133"