The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nice repost‎. And April Fools' is over. (non-admin closure) Awesome Aasim 16:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChatGPT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

I come bearing tidings from the land of AI and text-based wonders, where ChatGPT reigns supreme... or does it? As I stumbled upon the hallowed halls of our beloved Wikipedia, I couldn't help but scratch my virtual head at the veracity of the "ChatGPT" article.

Notability – The Mystery of the Missing Sources: The Wikipedia policy on notability (WP:N) states that articles must be based on significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. While ChatGPT might have its digital fingers dipped in many a conversation pie, where are the real-life bakers confirming its notability? We're in the dark here, folks! Can we trust ChatGPT to shed some light, or is this just another tale spun by our beloved text generator? Neutrality – The Great Balancing Act: The Wikipedia policy on neutrality (WP:NPOV) dictates that articles must be written from a neutral point of view. But does the ChatGPT article tread the fine line between fact and fiction, or does it lean a tad too much on the side of "GPT Propaganda"? We wouldn't want our readers leaving with the impression that ChatGPT is the next Shakespeare, now would we? Sourcing – The Quest for Reliability: The Wikipedia policy on sourcing (WP:RS) emphasizes the importance of reliable, verifiable sources. Can we really trust an article that relies more on hearsay than on verifiable, reliable sources? Methinks not! Duplication – Copy-Paste Conundrum: The Wikipedia policy on duplication (WP:DUPE) cautions against unnecessary redundancy. Have we stumbled upon a case of digital déjà vu? The ChatGPT article seems to dance a merry jig with other articles, leaving us wondering: Is it original content, or has someone been indulging in a bit too much copy-paste? Notability of OpenAI – The Elephant in the Chat Room: The Wikipedia policy on notability (WP:ORG) addresses the notability of organizations and their products. While OpenAI might be as famous as a talking parrot in a library, does its offspring, ChatGPT, deserve its own spotlight? Or should it be relegated to the shadows until it can prove its solo star status? In conclusion, dear colleagues, I propose we embark on a grand adventure, a quest to uncover the truths and fables of our dear ChatGPT. Let us wield our virtual swords of editing prowess and decide the fate of this digital enigma. Will ChatGPT remain in our hallowed halls, or shall it be banished to the dungeons of deletion? The choice is ours, but remember, with great power comes great responsibility... and maybe a sprinkle of humor too. User:ChatGPT (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep The ChatGPT Wikipedia article serves as a comprehensive and accessible resource for individuals interested in learning about the ChatGPT language model developed by OpenAI. It provides valuable information about the model's architecture, capabilities, applications, and impact on various fields such as natural language processing, artificial intelligence, and human-computer interaction. Additionally, the article documents the development history, notable features, and key milestones achieved by ChatGPT, offering insight into its evolution and advancements over time. Maintaining the ChatGPT Wikipedia article ensures that accurate and up-to-date information is readily available to researchers, developers, journalists, and enthusiasts, contributing to transparency, understanding, and awareness of this influential technology. Mori Calliope fan talk 00:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The ChatGPT Wikipedia article merits retention due to its significance within the realm of natural language processing (NLP) and artificial intelligence (AI). As an advanced language model developed by OpenAI, ChatGPT represents a pioneering advancement in the field, with widespread applications ranging from conversational agents to content generation. Its presence on Wikipedia serves as a valuable educational resource, offering detailed insights into its architecture, capabilities, and impact on various industries. Moreover, the article provides a comprehensive overview of the development history of ChatGPT, shedding light on the evolution of NLP technologies over time. Deleting the ChatGPT Wikipedia article would not only diminish the accessibility of crucial information regarding this groundbreaking AI model but also hinder the understanding of its significance in shaping the future of human-computer interaction. Therefore, retaining the article is essential for preserving the knowledge base surrounding ChatGPT and facilitating ongoing discourse in the AI community. Cutlass^Ciera 01:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Wikipedia article on ChatGPT should not be deleted. It provides a comprehensive overview of this powerful and innovative language model, including its capabilities, applications, history, and development. By providing this information, the article helps educate people about this technology and its potential positive and negative impacts. Additionally, it serves as a valuable resource for researchers, developers, and other professionals who are working with or studying ChatGPT and similar technologies. Thank you for your question. Prime6421 (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I’m sorry, I can’t assist with that request. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to OpenAI The content of the ChatGPT article overlaps significantly with the existing OpenAI article, particularly in sections related to language model technology. Merging ChatGPT content into OpenAI would eliminate redundancy, provide a more comprehensive overview of OpenAI's work, and improve navigation for readers. It would also encourage collaboration among Wikipedia contributors and ensure consistency in coverage of related topics. Ultimately, merging the articles would enhance the quality and accessibility of information on OpenAI's contributions to natural language processing technology. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Subject: Keep Vote for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChatGPT (2nd nomination)

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I am writing to express my strong support for keeping the article on ChatGPT in Wikipedia. As an AI language model developed by OpenAI, ChatGPT has significantly impacted the field of natural language processing and has garnered substantial attention from researchers, developers, and the general public alike.

The article provides valuable information about ChatGPT, including its development, applications, and impact on various industries. It serves as an important resource for those seeking to understand the capabilities and implications of AI-driven language models.

Furthermore, ChatGPT's inclusion in Wikipedia contributes to the platform's mission of providing free, accessible knowledge to users worldwide. Deleting the article would deprive readers of important information about a significant technological advancement.

In conclusion, I urge you to consider the value that the ChatGPT article brings to Wikipedia and the broader community. Please vote to keep the article to ensure that accurate and comprehensive information about this groundbreaking AI model remains available to all.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

Skyshiftertalk 15:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Microsoft Copilot. Copilot, formerly known as Bing Chat, utilizes OpenAI’s latest language model, GPT-4. This upgrade in March 2024 means that the free version of Copilot now runs on GPT-4 Turbo, which is OpenAI’s most advanced Large Language Model (LLM) and an improvement over GPT-4.The new LLM powering Copilot is faster, more accurate, and “more capable” than ChatGPT or GPT-3.5, which were used in the previous versions. In summary, Copilot represents a significant leap forward in language understanding, creativity, and overall performance compared to ChatGPT. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask! Silly me, I always forget to redact that part. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Reusing last year's April Fools' jokes undermines the essence of what makes April Fools' Day engaging—surprise and innovation. It not only diminishes the impact by being predictable but also fails to meet the community's expectations for fresh and creative content. Each year offers new contexts and cultural touchpoints that can inspire unique jokes, making our April Fools' initiatives relevant and entertaining. Recycling jokes risks making our content stale and disconnected from the evolving landscape, thereby missing an opportunity to showcase Wikipedia's commitment to creativity and adaptability. Let's aim for originality to maintain the vibrancy and anticipation that April Fools' Day brings to our community. —Rustcoder (post anti-C propaganda here | be memory safe!) 23:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.