Talk:ChatGPT

GPT4 discontinued

GPT4 is being discontinued and sunset as of April 30. the active status should be changed under model versions.

Source: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6825453-chatgpt-release-notes Torbslifre (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Outdated logo

OpenAI changed their "blossom" logo, and subsequently the logo of ChatGPT, in February of this year. The new logo does look almost identical, but the logo shown on this page is outdated. I think it'd be wise to update the logo on this page with the new logo. Panisetcircenses (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Hi Czarking0, about this neutrality tag, can you elaborate on what the issue is and how to fix it? Thanks. Alenoach (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Yep thanks, I think better balanced would be achieved by incorporating mainstream Chinese, and Chinese language sources on the topic. Existing sources

1. The Guardian - British
2. Rest of the world - Canadian
3. Sixth Tone - CCP backed English language journalism. Hard to see how this is not explicitly a propaganda outlet. Xianyu (50 million daily active users) is probably worth a direct mention
4. CNN - American, this seems like the exact sort of thing that if it is notable then Chinese sources should be used to support the claim
5. South China Morning post - anti CCP RS from Hong Kong
6. New York Times - American
7. Axios - American
8. ECFR - European

So two of the sources are Chinese one pro-CCP and one anti-CCP I think that is not too bad but I will note that none of them are Chinese language. I do think English language Chinese sources have a meaningful POV difference from Chinese language Chinese sources.

Additional support from 新华， 人民日报 would make me more confident. Taiwan Reporter or CNA in addition if we worry about too much CCP POV.

As for content (numbered by sentence in the paragraph)

1. Criminalization
2. Blocking
3. Black Market
4. Arrest
5. Arrest
6. Content Removal
7. Investment

I think that this content is more representative of what western media selects to report about China than either the reality of what the response to ChatGPT was in China or what a balanced summary of RS including Chinese and Chinese language sources would find.

In terms of our editing, I think you are doing a great job but I also think there is a representation of our own biases in the article when I read the Sixth Tone article and see that the one sentence you picked out for a claim in the article is in discussing the shadow market when that is not really what that article is about overall. Just to be clear I am just using that as an example I don't think you need to change that and I think Sixth Tone is not RS so it's not worth making a super balanced summary of that source. Czarking0 (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The paragraph leans indeed a little too much on the negative. I'm ok with removing some of the negative content, notably with the arrests which may be too anecdotal. I picked the sentence about the shadow market because it explains to some degree why Chinese continued to use ChatGPT even though it was banned, but it can be removed if that improves the paragraph. Maybe we should mention that the optimism about (and adoption of) generative AI is much higher in China than in Western countries; even though it's not about ChatGPT in particular, that's a really important point to mention. Your point about the origin of sources makes sense, I will check if there are reliable Chinese sources that give a significantly different perspective and potentially add that. Alenoach (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The AI Arms Race Is Changing Everything.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)