Spotted something a bit concerning on #wikipedia today: a user with 23x nonsensical-but-plausible-looking chatGPT created articles (all now deleted), and another with six. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Suspected_hoax_content_and_LLM_use_by_User:Gyan.Know - we didn't have the immediate rush of nonsense we were expecting, but there's definitely some seeping in
84 more sitting in the draft queue at the moment. Goodness knows how many quietly deleted. Really not wild about this...
Looking into it a bit more, the first user also "heavily expanded" a couple of dozen mainspace articles. Is any of this true? Who knows!
It is rather telling that anything about a place sounds like it was written by a tourist site or an estate agent, though.
Having said that I plugged in one of my own articles, and I am not wildly sold on the ability of the public tools to distinguish AI-generated content from "human-written in neutral style".
Unless there's something no-one told me until now. Hell of a way to find out...
Checked this with different samples of the same article: lead alone is likely entirely AI, some early sections possibly AI, some late sections likely entirely human. Very messy.
(Interestingly the later sections are the ones noting some kind of critical commentary, which might be relevant?)
