Talk:ChatGPT#Merge of ChatGPT Plus

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 The new logo does look almost identical, but the logo shown on this page is outdated.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)

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

:# The Guardian - British

:# Rest of the world - Canadian

:# 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

:# 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

:# South China Morning post - anti CCP RS from Hong Kong

:# New York Times - American

:# Axios - American

:# 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)

:# Criminalization

:# Blocking

:# Black Market

:# Arrest

:# Arrest

:# Content Removal

:# 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)

:::cheers btw great handling Czarking0 (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Eventually, I just removed the two anecdotal sentences. The content I found was not so much about ChatGPT in particular (which is banned in China anyway), but more about generative AI in general, so I added it to the article on generative AI. The paragraph remains rather negative, but since ChatGPT is banned in China, it's quite understandable.

::::I'm not really skilled in searching and assessing the reliability of sources in Chinese, but based on my research, the paragraph is broadly correct, except maybe this sentence: "Chinese state media have characterized ChatGPT as a way for the United States to spread misinformation." Maybe some sources said this, but it's unclear to me whether it is the way China characterizes ChatGPT in general. I believe that sentence should be removed, or softened, or better sourced. Alenoach (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

I think the services section should break down the paid tiers and make some historical view of when these came out and how the offering has changed over time.

Apart from that, regularly mentioning the various ways plus and pro interact with other aspects of ChatGPT makes for at best poor encyclopedic writing that is difficult to maintain and often becomes outdated. At worst it is effectively promotion of the company products.

I have already done several edits to consolidate the service tier info. In doing this I had to remove a lot of outdated information. I expect that the more recent edits about the o series will create similar problems. Fundamentally an encyclopedia is not a buyer's guide where readers should expect up to date info about different price tiers of a the same product. Czarking0 (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)