Jump to content

Talk:Gemini (chatbot): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Reverted 1 edit by 2402:3A80:1CA6:5E48:0:0:C171:66E9 (talk): Unconstructive
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic
Line 33: Line 33:


The text has two big problems. First, it's a general purpose essay about large language models, not information about Bard. Second it has no citations. That's enough to justify the revert, but I'd add that the text is generic and repetitive, and thus has hallmarks of AI generated text. It at least partially failed some free AI text detection tools (I'm not going to list them as I don't know whether to have faith in them, just reporting that I tried and they came up positive). [[User:Oblivy|Oblivy]] ([[User talk:Oblivy|talk]]) 01:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
The text has two big problems. First, it's a general purpose essay about large language models, not information about Bard. Second it has no citations. That's enough to justify the revert, but I'd add that the text is generic and repetitive, and thus has hallmarks of AI generated text. It at least partially failed some free AI text detection tools (I'm not going to list them as I don't know whether to have faith in them, just reporting that I tried and they came up positive). [[User:Oblivy|Oblivy]] ([[User talk:Oblivy|talk]]) 01:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

== ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION IN IMO STATE UNIVERSITY ==

Assessment [[Special:Contributions/102.90.43.138|102.90.43.138]] ([[User talk:102.90.43.138|talk]]) 14:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:16, 17 May 2023

Bard Mistake

Is there any possible use of this image in this draft? Basilio (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bard Error.png
No, for two reasons: one, it is widely known that Bard and other AI chatbots make a lot of mistakes; two, this image is a copyright violation and will be deleted momentarily. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very low readability

Under the Flesch reading ease scale, this article gets a score of 38, and is harder to read than 75% of Wikipedia articles. That reading scale is computed purely based on syllable length and sentence length, no other factors. DFlhb (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These measurements aren't accurate, and there are plenty of GAs and even FAs that have low "readibility scores". If you have specific issues you believe this article has, you are welcome to raise them here, not tag the lead with a {{Copyedit}} template. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only checked the readability score after noticing that the Launch section was unappealing and looked like a wall of text. A more specific complain is that the article seems very dense, and likely goes into excessive detail in places. That's not an opinion I have on most FA articles, and it's why I added the copyedit tag. DFlhb (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The length of each paragraph is about the same as other well-written articles that go into similar levels of detail and comprehensiveness. What details do you find excessive? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's subjective, and might be better left along for now.
But I'd at least separate the competitive aspects into a separate paragraph, that mentions the competition to launch before Microsoft, the increased costs, and the long-term fears of search engines losing their dominance due to chatbots, which I don't think we mention right now.
I'd also rename "Launch" to "Announcement" and just keep key details, and move the play-by-play of the launch into a "Launch" subsection under "Reception". DFlhb (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's all reception to the launch/announcement, not Bard itself. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of info posted by Gizmo2121

Recently, a newly created account @Gizmo2121 added a lengthy block of text to the article. It was reverted by ClueBot and restored by @Kabecinha11. I've removed it again.

The text has two big problems. First, it's a general purpose essay about large language models, not information about Bard. Second it has no citations. That's enough to justify the revert, but I'd add that the text is generic and repetitive, and thus has hallmarks of AI generated text. It at least partially failed some free AI text detection tools (I'm not going to list them as I don't know whether to have faith in them, just reporting that I tried and they came up positive). Oblivy (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION IN IMO STATE UNIVERSITY

Assessment 102.90.43.138 (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]