text:
User:Dom walden/Multivariate Analytic Combinatorics/Smooth Point via Residue Forms

Introduction
Here, we prove a theorem very similar to that of the previous chapter.

The proof is shorter but involves more advanced mathematics. It has the advantage that it does not assume the same minimality hypotheses.

Theorem
If $$F(z) = \frac{G(z)}{H(z)}$$ with a simple pole on $$\mathcal{V}$$. $$\mathcal{V}$$ is smooth above height $$h_\textbf{r} = c - \epsilon$$. If there is a subset $$W$$ of nondegenerate critical points on $$\mathcal{V}$$ at height $$c$$ such that $$C = \sum_{z \in W} C_*(z)$$ in $$H_d(\mathcal{M}, \mathcal{M}^{c-\epsilon})$$. Then, there is a compact neighbourhood $$\mathcal{N}$$ of $$\textbf{r}$$... Then

 * $$a_{n\textbf{r}} \sim \sum_{z \in W} \textbf{w}^{-n\textbf{r}} \frac{(2\pi)^{(1 - d)/2}}{\sqrt{\det \mathcal{H}}} \frac{G(\textbf{w})}{w_k H_k(\textbf{w})} (nr_k)^{(1 - d)/2}$$

Proof
Let $$B$$ and $$B'$$ be two components of $$amoeba(H)^c$$ where $$h_r$$ is not bounded from below on $$B'$$. Let $$T = T_e(x)$$ for some $$x \in B$$ and $$T' = T_e(x')$$ for some $$x' \in B'$$.

The intersection class $$INT(T, T')$$ is represented by the intersection of $$\mathcal{V}$$ and a homotopy between $$T$$ and $$T'$$ which intersects $$\mathcal{V}$$ transversely.

If we choose the homotopy such that its time $$t$$ cross-sections are tori that expand with $$t$$ and go through $$\textbf{w}$$, perturbed to intersect $$\mathcal{V}$$ transversely, then the class $$INT(T, T')$$ can be represented by a smooth (d - 1)-chain $$\gamma$$ on $$\mathcal{V}$$ on which the height reaches its maximum at $$\textbf{w}$$.

By the Cauchy coefficient formula and residue theorem:

 * $$\begin{align}

a_r &= \frac{1}{(2\pi i)^d} \int_T F(z) z^{-r-1} dz \\ &= \frac{1}{(2\pi i)^{d-1}} \int_\gamma Res(F(z) z^{-r-1} dz) + \frac{1}{(2\pi i)^{d-1}} \int_T' F(z) z^{-r-1} dz \\ &= \frac{1}{(2\pi i)^{d-1}} \int_\gamma Res(F(z) z^{-r-1} dz) \end{align}$$

As a result of ...

 * $$a_r = \frac{e^{-h_r(w)}}{(2\pi i)^{d-1}} \int_\gamma e^{-r_d \phi(z)} \frac{P(z)}{Q(z) \prod_{j=1}^d z_j} dz^\circ$$

By theorem 5.3 and the change of variables $$z_j = w_j e^{i\theta_j}$$ gives

 * $$a_{n\textbf{r}} \sim \sum_{z \in W} \textbf{w}^{-n\textbf{r}} \frac{(2\pi)^{(1 - d)/2}}{\sqrt{\det \mathcal{H}}} \frac{G(\textbf{w})}{w_k H_k(\textbf{w})} (nr_k)^{(1 - d)/2}$$


text:
Chatbots For Social Change/Prototypes/McGail/Beliefs and Why

= Summary =

The idea is to keep things incredibly simple, by querying for beliefs, understandings, and identities of conversants, and asking them to clarify what that means to them. This sets up a constrained environment to solidify some aspects of the storage of belief systems, working with possibly conflicting belief systems, and bouncing some off others.

The original research design consisted of the following questions:
 * 1) Which of the following do you identify as? Choose the option which most impacts how you view the world.
 * 2) What does it mean for you to be a [response from Q1]? That is, what do you believe which makes you a [response from Q1] ? Please give three distinct answers.
 * 3) You just mentioned [Statement 1]. Could you say a bit more about what this means?
 * 4) You just mentioned [Statement 2]. Could you say a bit more about what this means?
 * 5) You just mentioned [Statement 3]. Could you say a bit more about what this means?
 * 6) Are there any specific life experiences that have influenced your identity? If so, when and how?
 * 7) Now we would like you to tell us two things that come to mind when you think about these other groups that you don’t identify with. There is no right or wrong answer; you may think of particular words or phrases, or perhaps nothing at all. [List of ideological categories that the respondent didn’t choose]
 * 8) Keyword 1: _____________; Keyword 2: _____________ [for each category listed]

There were other versions of this, but the basic premise is to elicit iterated clarifications, to try to "get to the bottom" of their understandings of their belief systems. The study puts reported understandings, discursive explanation, as primary data to be explained. I think something like this could prove a nice model for a chatbot-based data collection scheme, but need to reflect more on what to do and whether it should be worth it.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Wikijunior:Africa/Ethiopia

Ethiopia, officially the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, is a country located in the Horn of Africa region in East Africa. Ethiopia's capital city is Addis Ababa. Ethiopia's main currency is the Birr.

Geography
Ethiopia borders Eritrea, Djibouti, Somalia, Kenya, South Sudan, and Sudan.

People
Ethiopia's official languages are Afar, Amharic, Oromo, Somali, and Tigrinya. Ethiopia's main religion is Christianity.

Sports
The main sports in Ethiopia are track and field and football.

title: Wikijunior:Africa/Ethiopia


text:
Talk:Shelf:Physical sciences

Heat
thermal conductivity

Abubakar Jibril (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shelf:Physical sciences


text:
Pokémon Red and Blue/Viridian City Gym

You’ve got only one Pokémon Gym left! But where could it be? Think back to the very start of your adventure. There was a Gym in Viridian City, but there was a man standing in front of it saying the Gym is closed. Well, it’s not closed any longer. Fly to Viridian City and enter. If you caught Articuno, be sure to bring it; it wipes the floor with the Gym Leader’s team.

Upon entering the Gym, you will discover the return of the directional pads last seen in Team Rocket’s hideout. I wonder if there is a connection… Anyway, start by stepping on the left-facing pads to the left of the entrance, against the wall. There is an enemy Trainer waiting to ambush you if you step on the upper pad. Past him, you will find two pads facing north; it doesn’t matter which one you take, because you’re guaranteed to run into another enemy Trainer when the path curves.

After defeating him, you will find a split. The Gym Leader is at the northwest corner of the map. The path to the right looks like it might be helpful. Unfortunately, if you take the path to the right, you will find an enemy Trainer — and he is blocking your way forward. Rats. Go back to the wider area and go south. The directional pads will deposit you at the entrance.

All well and good, but we still haven’t found the Gym Leader. It looks like you would be able to take the directional pad pointing north, but you would run into a dead end and be forced back the way you came. There is a small path with another directional pad interfering with your movement, and an item ball on the other side. We need to get that.

So take the one remaining path at the northwest to enter a room with no fewer than three enemy Trainers. Defeat them all, but if you think you’ll be able to get to the Gym Leader by walking past them, you’ll be disappointed; that path is a dead-end. Backtrack and take the door at the northeast of this room. Go south here to grab that Revive you saw earlier; then go north. You’ll pass an enemy Trainer, and after that you will finally find the path to the Gym Leader — or not, as the enemy Trainer here will block your path after battling him. After you battle this Trainer, return to the entrance. Take that long straight north path we ignored earlier; with that Trainer gone, you now have an unimpeded path to the Gym Leader.

And who is this Gym Leader, you might ask? None other than Giovanni, of Team Rocket infamy. This Gym and the Rocket hideout are the only two places in the game where directional pads appear. Giovanni is rather fond of those.

Boss — Giovanni (•4950 reward)

 * 1) Level 45 Rhyhorn
 * 2) Level 42 Dugtrio
 * 3) Level 44 Nidoqueen
 * 4) Level 45 Nidoking
 * 5) Level 50 Rhydon

This guy talks a good game, but he’s really a pushover. If you teach a Water-type Surf (and it doesn’t even have to be that strong a Water-type; a level-30 Gyarados or Vaporeon would work), you will walk all over Giovanni’s team. If you brought Articuno instead, use that; Giovanni will fall even faster.

After you defeat Giovanni, you will receive the eighth and final Badge in the game, the Earth Badge. Possessing this badge ensures that any Pokémon, of any level, from any source, will obey you. You will also receive TM 27 (Fissure), an impractical if impressive one-hit KO move.

title: Pokémon Red and Blue/Viridian City Gym


text:
Pokémon Red and Blue/Victory Road

Now that you have all eight badges, it’s time to go to the Indigo Plateau and challenge the Elite Four. But first, how do we get there?

Go west from Viridian City onto Route 22. You’ll run into your rival here.

Boss — Rival

Before you leave, be sure that you have lots of Ultra Balls, because we will encounter a legendary Pokémon during the course of our travels. At the west side of Route 22 you will find a large building. Go through it onto…
 * 1) Level 47 Pidgeot
 * 2) Level 45 Rhyhorn
 * 3) Level 45 Gyarados, Exeggcute, or Growlithe
 * 4) Level 47 Growlithe, Gyarados, or Exeggcute
 * 5) Level 50 Alakazam
 * 6) The trainer’s starter from way back in Pallet Town, fully evolved, at Level 53.

Route 23
The final Route in the game! Yay! And what a disappointment. This Route is extremely large and completely empty. The only patches of tall grass in this Route (towards the end) contain only Spearow, Ekans, and Sandshrew and their evolved forms. These are Pokémon we’ve seen a thousand times elsewhere. However, this Route is one of only two places (the other being Seafoam Island) where you can find wild Ditto. Pick one up if you want.

Go north, past each of the security guards. You’ll need to Surf for a bit around the middle of the Route. Despite this area’s general boringness, there are three hidden items to obtain. Somewhere near the small square island in the middle of the water, you will find a Max Ether (although you can only pick it up if you are in the water). Immediately after you reach land again, you will see a patch of tall grass leading to an empty area. If you examine the left tree of this empty area, you will find an Ultra Ball. A Full Restore is hidden near the game’s final patch of grass at the north end of the Route.

But you cannot just walk in to the Pokémon League. Trainers desiring to become the very best must prove themselves by traversing Victory Road. Let’s do so.

Victory Road proper
You thought Seafoam Island was bad? This cave is even bigger, and the Pokémon here are at an even higher level. Also unlike Seafoam Island, you will find enemy Trainers here, on their journeys through the cave. Here is how you get from one door of this “small building” to the other. Be sure you have a Pokémon that knows Strength, because you’ll need to push more boulders around.

Start by going to the left. Follow the path to the end and you will run into your first boulder. This is a kind of “exit only” barricade. If you were to try to push it north, it would get stuck and bar the path permanently. If you are on the other side of this rock, you can push it south for a quick path to the exit (which might be rather important shortly).

The way forward is to climb the stairs onto the rocky platform and go east. Easy, right? Unfortunately, Victory Road features barricades, like the run you’ll run into here. The only way to remove these barricades is by pushing switches, but the switches here are too heavy for you to press by standing on them. You will need to move a boulder onto a switch before you can progress further.

There is such a boulder right at the bottom of the stairs. Push it to the right, being careful not to knock it against a wall such that you can’t push it in the correct direction. When you get to the switch, a rock inconveniently blocks your being able to push the rock there. Instead, push it up, right, then down, and you will remove the barrier.

Follow the path and you will reach a fork. Go to the right and you will find a boulder. Push it forward to find two item balls. The one on the left is a Rare Candy. The one on the top is TM 43. No matter which one you choose, you’ll have to block off the other one with the boulder to get to it. Choose one and double back.

If you go left at the fork, you will run into an enemy Trainer. Follow the path past another enemy Trainer to a ladder. Use it.

The second floor
When you get here, you will see a boulder to the north; this is another “exit only” boulder. Go south instead. Push this boulder onto the switch, which is at the southwest corner set against the wall. Once you do this, you can go up the stairs and follow that path. You’ll pass an enemy Trainer.

Past the second enemy Trainer is the ladder that leads to the exit. Hooray! Except you can’t get to it until you activate another switch. Go down the stairs, then west. You’ll find the switch and, at the end, a Rare Candy. Going east from the stairs leads to a narrow passageway. There is a switch here — but no boulder to go with it. How will you exit the cave? Read on…

Past the narrow passageway is a square room with an enemy Trainer and a Full Heal. There is also a ladder here. Ignore it for now and continue at the northwest; you will find another enemy Trainer and TM 17 at a dead end. Now go up those stairs.

Go north and you’ll see a boulder; ignore it for now. The east path holds an enemy Trainer and a Max Revive. Go to the north wall, then go west at ways. At the end you will find TM 47 and a switch. Ignore the switch and go down — you’ve got a Legendary Pokémon to catch!

This room has an enemy Trainer standing next to a rock, and a Guard Spec past him. This rock contains a free Ultra Ball. Grab it, you’ll need it. Due south of the Guard Spec you will find a Level 50 Moltres. Again, save your game before battling him. If you defeat Moltres by accident, he will disappear and never return, so restart your game without saving to try again. Once you’ve caught him (if you’re interested), backtrack up that ladder.

Backtrack all the way to that lone boulder in the middle of the room. You’ll need to push it north two tiles, then all the way to the left. You will need to guide the boulder through the rocks at the end to depress the switch. Backtrack again to the ladder down to the second floor, then go west and up the stairs on the rocky platform. Defeat an enemy Trainer, then keep going. Were you not to have pushed that rock onto the switch, you would be stymied by a barricade.

Keep following the path and you will see two enemy Trainers. Past them is a room with two an “exit only” boulder you can push for a shortcut back. You will find a boulder and a hole. Put one into the other, then jump after it.

You’re almost home. Push this boulder all the way to the left onto the switch you saw earlier that had no boulder near it. Once the barricade disappears, follow the ladder path straight to the exit. In the very last room, you’ll find a Full Restore hidden in the rock.

title: Pokémon Red and Blue/Victory Road


text:
Pokémon Red and Blue/Elite Four

You’ve finally reached the end — the Elite Four, the four strongest Trainers in the entire game. If you can defeat all of them, you will become the new Champion and beat the game. However, there is one caveat to this: you must battle the Elite Four with no access to a Pokémon Center between battles. And if you lose to one of these Trainers, then you must restart your battles back at the beginning. Purchase all the healing items you can afford, grab those Ethers and Elixirs, because this is the one place in the game where PP depletion becomes a real worry, and head on in.

Boss — Lorelei (•5544 reward)

 * 1) Level 54 Dewgong
 * 2) Level 53 Cloyster
 * 3) Level 54 Slowbro
 * 4) Level 56 Jynx
 * 5) Level 56 Lapras

Your best bet here is an Electric type, so taking Zapdos might be a good idea. Only Jynx would pose a problem to such a strategy (it is Ice/Psychic), so a powerful Fire-type would be a good call. If you have Fighting, that will be super-effective against the Dewgong, Cloyster, and Lapras.

Boss — Bruno (•5472 reward)

 * 1) Level 53 Onix
 * 2) Level 55 Hitmonchan
 * 3) Level 55 Hitmonlee
 * 4) Level 56 Onix
 * 5) Level 58 Machamp

Zapdos will come really handy here also. Just use Drill Peck and you’ll overcome his three Fighting-type Pokémon. The two Onixes can be quickly defeated by copious amounts of Surf.

Boss — Agatha (•5940 reward)

 * 1) Level 56 Gengar
 * 2) Level 56 Golbat
 * 3) Level 55 Haunter
 * 4) Level 58 Arbok
 * 5) Level 60 Gengar

This boss is kind of a joke. Agatha is notorious for using Dream Eater over and over again when your Pokémon is not asleep, meaning it does nothing. She also switches her Pokémon out more-or-less at random. An Alakazam or Dugtrio would be very powerful here, although you’ll need something non-Ground to deal with Golbat.

Boss — Lance (•6038 reward)

 * 1) Level 58 Gyarados
 * 2) Level 56 Dragonair
 * 3) Level 56 Dragonair
 * 4) Level 60 Aerodactyl
 * 5) Level 62 Dragonite

First of all, the two Gyarados are four-times-weak to Electric. Zapdos should finish them. Otherwise, this may well be your first encounter with Dragon-type Pokémon. If you brought Articuno, then Lance can’t do a thing to stop you. Other Ice-type attacks will be extremely effective.

So you’ve defeated the Elite Four. Is your name going to go down in history? Not quite yet…

Boss — Rival

 * 1) Level 61 Pidgeot
 * 2) Level 59 Alakazam
 * 3) Level 61 Rhydon
 * 4) Level 61 Gyarados, Exeggcutor, or Arcanine
 * 5) Level 63 Arcanine, Gyarados, or Exeggcutor
 * 6) Level 63 Blastoise, Venusaur, or Charizard

The Rival will always start with Pidgeot, then Alakazam, then Rhydon. Zapdos would again come in really handy, easily defeating Pidgeot. Anything with Surf can easily take out Rhydon. The Alakazam, on the other hand, is nasty. It knows Recover, so it can restore half of its HP up to twenty times. Furthermore, none of the usual elemental attacks are super-effective against Alakazam; the only Pokémon that would help in this way is, believe it or not, Parasect.

Once you manage to defeat those first three Pokémon, the next Pokémon depends on which starter you chose back in Pallet Town. If you chose Charmander, then he has a Gyarados, an Arcanine, and a Blastoise. If you picked Squirtle, he has an Exeggcutor, a Gyarados, and a Venusaur. If you chose Bulbasaur, then he has an Arcanine, and Exeggcutor, and a Charizard. Zapdos works once again against Gyarados. If you picked Sqirtle, then the powerful Ice-type move that probably took down Lance would also be effective against Exeggcutor and Venusaur. Zapdos can be a powerhouse here when using its non-Electric-type attacks.

And that, once your rival’s last Pokémon falls, will be that! Congratulations are due; you just beat the game.

title: Pokémon Red and Blue/Elite Four


text:
Pokémon Red and Blue/Unknown Dungeon

After the credits roll, when you continue your game you will find yourself in your old room in Pallet Town. All your Pokémon are still there and still just as powerful. From here on out, you can rebattle the Elite Four whenever you want. (If you’ve been defeating every enemy Trainer on every map, this is now your only way of acquiring funds.) But there is still one last thing you have yet to do…

Fly to Cerulean City. Stop at the Pokémon Center and take out that Master Ball you’ve been saving; you’ll need it. Go north to Route 24, and surf southwest, following the path of the bridge. You will reach a small area with a cave. If you were to access this area any time before becoming the Champion, you would find someone here standing in your way. But now you are the Champion, and you now have authorization to enter the most complex cave in the game.

The Unknown Dungeon is a big scary area, filled with high-level wild Pokémon. If you are playing Pokémon Yellow, then no guidance is necessary for this dungeon; it is a simple linear path, back and forth and up and down. If you are playing Pokémon Red or Blue, read on.

Go up the stairs to the first ladder, leading up. If you want a PP Up, then go up it and go through the maze; you will emerge at a separate ladder not far from here. Otherwise, ignore it and start Surfing. Ignore the first three ladders you may find. The first one is the out-point of the path to the PP Up; while the second and third ones are the beginning and end of another side path that contains a Full Restore. If you search the area you’ll find a white-colored rock near the third ladder; this contains a hidden Rare Candy.

The ladder you want to take is at the very end of the path. Up on the second floor, just follow the maze. No items can be found in any of these dead ends. Once you go back down to the first floor, you will be right next to a ladder going down into the basement. A Max Revive can be found to the east of the ladder. Otherwise, this is then a straight shot to Mewtwo. You will pass an Ultra Ball on the way, but you won’t be needing it. You can find a second Ultra Ball hidden in the white rock at the northeast corner of the map.

Boss — Mewtwo

 * 1) Level 70 Mewtwo

Throw your Master Ball and the battle is over.

If you used your Master Ball on a different Pokémon, you will find Mewtwo an extremely powerful Pokémon. It makes catching Zapdos seem like a picnic. It has Recover, so this will be a very long battle. The easiest tactic is to try to freeze him by using Articuno’s Blizzard and Ice Beam repeatedly. Once frozen, he will not thaw unless a Fire-type move is used on him, or you use the Haze move.

title: Pokémon Red and Blue/Unknown Dungeon


text:
Pokémon Red and Blue/Saffron City

Now that you have five Badges, it’s time to go explore Saffron City, that big city in the middle of the region that you couldn’t get into. Go to the Celadon City Department Store and buy a drink item from the vending machines on the roof (any one will do). Then go into one of the guard posts at the edge of the city. Give the drink to the guard, and you are granted free access to the city. (You only have to do this once, and then all four of the gates will be available to you.)

Team Rocket is back, and they are occupying the city! Team Rocket grunts are blocking the entrance to the Gym and one of the houses in the northwest corner of the city. Oddly, this city has two Gyms, and only the one of the right is blockaded. Consider entering the one to the left.

Fighting Dojo
Here, you must defeat five enemy Trainers. All five of them use only Normal-type and Fighting-type attacks, which means that a single Ghost-type Pokémon can defeat every Pokémon in this Gym without sustaining a hit itself. Once the battles are complete, you will be offered a choice of two Poké Balls. One contains Hitmonchan, the other Hitmonlee.

Other things in town
The other house you can enter at this point in time is one on the southeast corner of town. Talk to the man inside and you will receive TM 29.

Silph Co. Building
This eleven-floor skyscraper is one of the most confusing areas in the game. Inside you will find squares with diamonds on them; these are warp pads. Step on a warp pad and you will be transferred to the other warp pad of that pair, somewhere else in the building. Warp pads are two-way.

Take note that on the ninth floor you will find a place to heal your Pokémon, although you need to get the Card Key before you can use it.

Getting the Card Key
The first floor is eerily quiet. In the northeast corner is an elevator and some stairs. The elevator can take you to any floor of the building on command. The President of Silph company is being harassed by Team Rocket, and is on the eleventh floor. However, if you go straight up to eleven, you’ll find one enemy Trainer and a dead end. Getting to the President’s office is going to be tricky.

Take the elevator to the fifth floor. There’s a Rocket grunt to the very east and a Scientist at the west, near a locked door. Ignore the two warp pads you see. You need only take one warp pad to get the Card Key. At the south end of the hallway, past two locked doors, is a path to the east. Unfortunately, the Rocket grunt here is standing in your way and will not move. Your only choice is to step on the warp pad here.

You will end up on the ninth floor. However, we don’t need to stay here. Step right back on the warp pad to be returned to the fifth floor. You can now proceed east. You will find the Card Key sitting on the floor here. With this item, you can open all the locked doors in the building. This long narrow corridor dead-ends in the body of a Rocket grunt. If he moved north to fight you when approached earlier, you can exit that way; otherwise, return to the ninth floor.

At this point, you have two choices. You can run Team Rocket out as quickly as possible; for that, skip to the Saving the President section below. Otherwise, you can clear out every floor of the building methodically. Note that we will not be using any warp pads while we do this.

Second floor
South of the stairs are a Rocket grunt. Go west and you’ll reach a big open room; there is another Rocket standing between the two tables. To the east of him is a Scientist; past him is a warp pad. To the west of the two big tables are two locked doors; the top one contains a warp pad and TM 36; the bottom one contains a warp pad and a Scientist.

Third floor
There are four warp pads in this symmetrical area, one in each of the four corners. The only interesting things on this floor are in the middle. You’ll fight a Rocket, then encounter a locked door on the left. (To the right is a dead end with a warp pad.) Past that door you’ll find a second door. Past that you will be in a room with a warp pad, a Scientist to fight, and a Hyper Potion on the ground.

Fourth floor
To the south of the stairs/elevator is a large room containing a Rocket. Follow the path to the left and you’ll find another Rocket in the middle of the room. The room to the right contains a locked door; behind it you will find a Scientist. Behind the locked door on the left you will find a room filled with boxes; you will find a Full Heal, a Max Revive, and an Escape Rope sitting on the floor. (The only thing of interest in the far side of the room is a person, but they’re not a Trainer.)

Fifth floor
You’ve already been on this floor, but now you can get through the locked doors you saw earlier. Inside the big central room is a locked door, but there is nothing of interest behind it. In the room on the top-left you will find a Protein; at the far some boxes in the bottom-left room is TM 09. You will find a Rocket at the very top-right corner of the level (although you may have already battled him), a Scientist in the middle room near the locked door, a Scientist near the first locked door, and a Rocket blocking your way to where the Card Key was; you’ve already battled him.

Sixth floor
There are a number of people on this floor, but only three of them want to battle you. You will find a Rocket guarding the entrance to the central room, which itself contains no Trainers. You’ll find another Rocket guarding the other entrance, and a Scientist on the left near a locker door. Behind this door you will find an HP Up and an X Accuracy.

Seventh floor
You’ll find your first Rocket in the hallway near the stairs. In the locked room behind him you will find TM 03; the room beyond that contains a Rocket and a warp pad. There is a Rocket standing near the counter in the room to the left; there is nothing of interest behind the locked door he is guarding. If you follow the hallway all the way to the end, you will find a Scientist who wants to fight and a Calcium in the corner.

You’ll probably notice the sealed-off room in the top-left corner of the floor. You’ll visit this room on the way to defeat Team Rocket’s leader.

Eighth floor
You’ll find a Rocket right by the elevator. Follow the path to the left and you’ll find another Rocket standing at a fork in the road. Right is a dead end, so go left, then cut upwards past a warp pad. At the end of this path you will find a Scientist and a warp pad. There is only a warp pad behind this locked door. (As a side note, the warp pads outside and inside this locked room transfer to each other. Not terribly useful.)

Ninth floor
As mentioned above, you will find in the bottom-left corner of the area a woman standing near five beds; if you talk to her, your Pokémon will be healed as if you went to a Pokémon Center. There is a Rocket at the bottom of the center hallway next to the locked door, a Scientist in the room to the bottom-right (which can be accessed both through the locked doors and by following the path around the side), and another Rocket guarding the path to a warp pad behind a locked door near the healing lady.

Tenth floor
You’re getting to the very top of the tower. On this floor, much smaller than the ones below, you will find a Scientist loitering near the stairs. South of him is a room containing a warp pad and a locked door; all you will find behind it is two more warp pads. Follow the hallway to the left instead, into the room with all the boxes. You’ll have to fight a Rocket to get in, but if you follow the path, you will find a Carbos, a Rare Candy, and TM 26.

Eleventh floor
You’ve finally reached the top of the tower! Unfortunately, while the CEO of Silph Company awaits rescue in the center room, you cannot get in there. You’ll have to use warp pads to rescue the CEO. There are no Trainers to battle here.

Saving the President
Be sure to heal up before you start out, because you’ll have to face not one but two bosses. You will use warp pads to accomplish this task.

Go to the ninth floor, where the healing lady is. There is a door just north of her with a Rocket in it; you will need to step on the warp pad past him. You will appear on the seventh floor — and your Rival is there, itching for a fight!

Boss — Rival (•2600 reward)

 * 1) Level 37 Pidgeot
 * 2) Level 38 Exeggcute
 * 3) Level 35 Gyarados
 * 4) Level 35 Alakazam
 * 5) Level 40 Charizard, Blastoise, or Venusaur (depending on which starter you chose at the beginning of the game)

There is another person in the room here. Be sure to talk to this person because they will give you a Lapras if you have an open spot in your party! (Don’t worry if you can’t get the Pokémon now. You can return to receive it shortly.) Step on the warp pad beyond her.

You will end up on the eleventh floor, in a different area than what can be accessed via the elevator. One final Rocket defends the President’s office, behind a locked door.

Giovanni returns! After you gave him a good trouncing in Celadon City, Giovanni has launched a new plan, which you are currently in the process of ruining. Don’t show him any mercy.

Boss — Giovanni (•4059 reward)

 * 1) Level 37 Nidorino
 * 2) Level 35 Kangaskhan
 * 3) Leve 37 Rhyhorn
 * 4) Level 41 Nidoqueen

After you send Giovanni packing for a second time, he and all the Rocket grunts will disappear from the building forever. Talk to the man sitting on the couch; he is the President of Silph Company. He is eternally grateful you terminated the “discussions” he was having with Team Rocket. As thanks, he will give you the most valuable item in all of Pokémon: the Master Ball. No matter what Pokémon you throw at it, the Master Ball will catch it without issue. You only get one of these, ever!

Near the door you’ll find a computer on a desk; this works just like the computer in a Pokémon Center. Put the Master Ball in item storage; you’ll want to save it for Mewtwo at the very end of the game. If you couldn’t pick up Lapras because you had six Pokémon with you, you can deposit one here and double back.

The Saffron City Gym
Now that Team Rocket has been driven out of Saffron City, there is nothing stopping you from getting your fifth Gym Badge. Sabrina’s Gym is a maze of warp pads. There are seven enemy Trainers here, but you’ll have to get lost in the maze in order to defeat them all.

To get to Sabrina from the entrance, take the one warp pad at the entrance, then take the top-left warp pad in the room you find yourself in; take the top-right warp pad in this room; then take the bottom-left warp pad, and you will reach Sabrina.

Boss — Sabrina (•4257 reward)

 * 1) Level 38 Kadabra
 * 2) Level 37 Mr. Mime
 * 3) Level 38 Venomoth
 * 4) Level 43 Alakazam

After you defeat Sabrina, you will earn yourself the Marsh Badge. Now that you have this Badge, Pokémon you trade into the game up to level 70 will obey your commands. You will also receive TM 46.

The Mimic Girl
There is one last thing to do after you have driven Team Rocket out. In the northwest corner of town, a Rocket grunt was blocking a house. Now that you can enter the house, do so, and you will find an annoying person called the Mimic Girl. To speak rationally with her, you must give her a Poké Doll (you can buy one at the Celadon City Department Store). If you do this, she will give you TM 31. You can also find a Nugget hidden on the table near her computer.

title: Pokémon Red and Blue/Saffron City


text:
User talk:2601:703:4284:7C20:4432:9C43:9D9A:2FEB

--SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 07:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


text:
Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2023/December

(New) Feature on Kartographer: Adding geopoints via QID
Since September 2022, it is possible to create geopoints using a QID. Many wiki contributors have asked for this feature, but it is not being used much. Therefore, we would like to remind you about it. More information can be found on the project page. If you have any comments, please let us know on the talk page. – Best regards, the team of Technical Wishes at Wikimedia Deutschland

Thereza Mengs (WMDE) 12:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Language used in category pages
Currently when a category is nested under a parent category, the parent category classifies the nested category as a "related category" and says, "the following related category may be of interest." I don't think "related category" the most appropriate term for a nested category—I think they should be called "subcategories" instead, as this is more descriptive of what the nested categories actually are (not just vaguely related categories). How could we change this language? @Leaderboard @MarcGarver —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

 * , this should be changeable by editing the relevant system message on MediaWiki. Where is this exactly (i.e, provide a page that shows the "related category" part you mention above). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Any category page with nested categories has this, but Category:Ingredients is where I noticed it first. Thanks! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 20:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I figured out how to make this change—thank you!! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 21:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete my donates
At this days I feel realy hurt from wiki community and start wonder that it would be better delete all my data. This is not a "free" web and I think I want to start new start. I feel wiki community hurt my private too. The problem is that first some of my data is mix up with other data. Secondly it just would be hard to del book after another one. I don't like wiki anymore and wonder if there is any value to donate for this web or education any human on earth. יוני2023 (discuss • contribs) 06:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Moreover it's feel like wiki take from MY FREEDOM and if it's the case I don't mind destroy all my donates.יוני2023 (discuss • contribs) 07:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I wrote many values for the book פייתון/פייתון גרסה 3 (python). I feel hurt by the Hebrew Universty and those pages make me just feel sadness. collaboration with chauvinism wiki /chauvinism world.יוני2023 (discuss • contribs) 07:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

In addition, I'm not sure if it legal del books after I donated them...I del שיטות מחקר כמותיות. I realy don't love social works right now and felt need del this book. It was hard. I could not del all pages as one. I got hell time and I dont want to cooperate with those who hurt me. יוני2023 (discuss • contribs) 07:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Hi @יוני2023. There don't seem to be any books on English Wikibooks for which you are the sole contributor. We cannot do anything about פייתון/פייתון גרסה 3 here at English Wikibooks. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Kittycataclysm, thanks I would keep read about Grégoire XIII Sérapionיוני2023 (discuss • contribs)


text:
PyAnWin/Python Functions

Python functions are blocks of code that perform specific tasks. Let’s explore the key concepts related to functions in Python: Function Definition: A function is defined using the def keyword, followed by the function name and a pair of parentheses. Example:

def my_function: print("Hello from a function")

Calling a Function: To execute a function, use its name followed by parentheses. Example:

def my_function: print("Hello from a function") my_function

Function Arguments: Information can be passed into functions as arguments. Arguments are specified inside the parentheses when defining a function. Example: def greet(name): print("Hello, " + name) greet("Alice")

Number of Arguments: Functions must be called with the correct number of arguments. Example: def full_name(first_name, last_name): print(first_name + " " + last_name) full_name("John", "Doe")

Arbitrary Arguments (*args): If you don’t know how many arguments a function will receive, use *args. The function receives a tuple of arguments. Example: def youngest_child(*kids): print("The youngest child is " + kids[2]) youngest_child("Emil", "Tobias", "Linus")

Keyword Arguments: Arguments can be sent with the key=value syntax, regardless of their order. Example: def youngest_child(child3, child2, child1): print("The youngest child is " + child3) youngest_child(child1="Emil", child2="Tobias", child3="Linus")

Remember, functions are essential for organizing code, improving readability, and reusing logic. Feel free to experiment with creating your own functions! 🐍

title: PyAnWin/Python Functions


text:
PyAnWin/Python Classes and OOP

```wikicode

Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) in Python
Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) is a programming paradigm that structures programs by bundling related properties and behaviors into individual objects. Objects represent components of a system, similar to an assembly line where each step processes materials to create a finished product. An object contains data (like raw materials) and behavior (like assembly line actions).

Defining a Class: The Blueprint
A class serves as a blueprint for creating objects. To define a class, use the `class` keyword. ```

Creating Objects (Instances)
Instantiate a class to create objects.

Example: ```python p1 = MyClass print(p1.x) ```

The `__init__` Function
The `__init__` function initializes object properties. It's executed when an object is created.

Customizing String Representation (`__str__` Function)
Control how an object is represented as a string.

Object Methods
Remember, OOP allows you to model real-world entities and their interactions. Dive deeper into classes, inheritance, and more to unlock the full power of Python! 🐍

title: PyAnWin/Python Classes and OOP


text:
User:Rodrique Kozhaya

Contract farming and its impact on broiler producers in Lebanon. A systematic review Academic Paper from the year 2020 in the subject Agrarian Studies,, language: English, abstract: The hypotheses of this thesis is: There is a positive relationship between contract farming and the economic benefits of broiler producers and the development of the broiler sector in Jezzine District. Findings from farmer’s interviews indicated that sustainability, guaranteed price, risk reduction, credit facilities and technical aids are the main reasons for signing a contract. In contrast, Farmers have expressed problems concerning the contractors’ responsibilities such as delay in payment and delivery. Also, when prices are high, it was argued that farmers were selling the products in the open market. This thesis has been realized within the agribusiness sector and experiments the Transaction Cost Theory a branch of the New Institutional Economy which explain market failure caused by many factors. Transaction costs are associated with carrying a transaction between buyers and sellers. This study has been conducted between 2014 and 2017; and has collected data from 11 broiler producers in Jezzine, Lebanon, about: Production costs, capital investment, revenues, land tenure, access to infrastructure, and information about the contract.

title: User:Rodrique Kozhaya


text:
Flora of New York/Clade Carex

 << Main Carex page

title: Flora of New York/Clade Carex


text:
Wikibooks talk:Artificial Intelligence

Suggestions
Thanks for starting this draft policy! I was the one who started the thread on the Reading Room/Assistance page. I'm not really a contributor to wikibooks, so I'm not going to say what does or does not make sense for this project, but I did have a few comments on the draft.

Prompt attribution: Which prompt(s) were fed into the tool (e.g. "Make a graph to show the change of the price of pomegranates from 1980 to today" or "Generate an image of bebop as a person").

I assume this has something to do with reproducibility.

 * I wonder how useful this will turn out to be, as to my understand Chat GPT responses aren't reproducible like that, that is, if someone else comes along and gives them the same prompt they will get a different output.
 * I have seen marketing material for Office365. This claims that it will trawl through the personal content in the same account, in order to "ground" prompts to the AI, which will make the AI result less reproduceable across accounts.  Do we want to seek the "grounded" prompts to the AI?  Whether this is possible or subject to RFC 6919 part 1 would depend on whether the tools make grounded prompts visible to the user. Jfw01 (discuss • contribs) 23:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This will be compounded if it requires multiple iterations of a prompt to generate satisfactory copy (e.g. please write a section about X ... Please make sure to mention Y ... No, not like that, this bit is wrong ... &c), as the responses would diverge.
 * This might only be practical for the use of LLMs for very discrete sections of articles. I can imagine a use case where someone might want to give an entire page to Chat GPT and ask it to update it, for instance.

Moderation:

Should there be some suggestion as to what amount of LLM generated content is suitable per wikibook, or as to the amount of curation per word of LLM generated text?

There may be an unintended consequence of an open policy of LLM generated text that soon there are thousands more wikibooks all produced by asking Chat GPT 4 "Please write a 50,000 word wikibook on [the history of aviation, the life and times of Sir Walter Raleigh, Fermat's last theorem...]". If so,

 * The existential question: is there any point to wikibooks if it is just a step removed from asking Chat GPT for something? What is the value-add?
 * The quality control question: LLM could potential create far more content far more quickly than wikibooks current deals with and can edit, fact check, and so on.
 * The copyright question: it seems to be possible for LLMs to plagiarise or copyvio other sources. The more words produced by them--whether that's 100,000 words spread across 1,000 pages or 100,000 words in one wikibook--the more likely there are copyright issues that are more likely to go undetected by the editor, because they did not **themselves** copy the text.

Perhaps I am just catastrophising and this is in fact the beginning of a brave new world, but these were some issues that I have been wondering about--it does make me wonder if saying, "you're not allowed to use LLM generated text at all" might be easier, if completely unenforceable, or, "you may only use LLMs to edit or provide suggestion on original text you have produced." JCrue (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

 * I am not assuming that it's reproducible (as you point out, it's not), but this keeps us from having more-or-less useless declarations like "made with AI". Plus, there could be meaningful licensing differences between tools and when and how they were generated. E.g. a model may have been fed copyrighted material up until date [x], but they stopped doing that on date [y], so any attribution or copyright issues could be irrelevant or drastically different.
 * To answer your questions:
 * Re: your first point, you have already answered your own question. Precisely because asking LLMs the same question gets you all kinds of answers, having a deliberate, vetted, reliable textbook that includes multiple sets of eyes on it is very different from the "this is just whatever MidJourney spits out today" kind of answer you get from these tools as of now.
 * This is why I included a clause about how just publishing whatever you get from ChatGPT without first editing it is inappropriate and blockable. Someone could come along and spit out GBs of trash that seems kinda/sorta reasonable. It's really important to not let anyone publish a flood of AI junk.
 * This is the Wild West part and where I as a non-lawyer can't give any trenchant perspective.
 * Great points: glad you brought up the issues. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions @JCrue! Regarding moderation, I feel like a lot of what you mentioned is covered by the stipulation that "LLMs may not be used to generate original material at Wikibooks" and can only be used as an assistant using the provided guidelines. In this way, an LLM would not be able to write a book or page or even paragraph on its own (i.e. it can't write prose), and in theory this would prevent massive contributions. Regarding copyright, I think we'll have to wait and see how things hash out in the legal realm and in bigger communities than we have here. What do you think? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Would prefer a total ban on the use of AI with regards to Wikibooks. Maybe in a few years when it is actually capable of producing useful text but it certainly is a long way from that point right now.--Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Estonia.svg|15px]] [[Image:Flag_of_Ukraine.svg|15px]] talk 05:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Xania is correct. Two of the three coding/programming sites I use have an outright ban on ANY use of "AI" in code or documentation creation.  If we believe that "precision of language" and integrity of content is important, we must not allow tools with unknown bias to change the meaning or tone and present it as being true and correct. Eggiejw (discuss • contribs) 21:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * These are valid concerns! To make sure I understand, it seems to me that @Xania and @Eggiejw are against LLMs generating content itself—I agree with this stance for all of the reasons stated, and the policy as it stands does indeed reflect this. However, I have seen people advocate for another use case for LLMs as tools to suggest things like structural outlines—in these circumstances, the LLM is generating almost no actual finished publishable content, and the risk is thus extremely low. While I would not personally use a LLM to suggest an outline for a book/chapter, I don't see a huge risk inherent to editors doing so, especially if they are vetted by a human and if the finished content itself is not LLM-generated. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see why people using AI for ideas or outlines is such a bad idea. ForTheGrammar (discuss • contribs) 02:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As a necessary precaution in the pursuit of quality there needs to be a zero-tolerance policy for LLM output in Wikibooks, at least as far as "content" goes. LLMs deal with plausible sentence construction, not fact aggregation, and the books deal with creativity for fiction and facts for nonfiction.  LLMs cannot help in reaching either goal.  So the official suggestion as to what amount of LLM generated content is suitable per Wikibook should remain zero, zilch, none.  When new models come out, then the question needs to be revisited.  However, currently we have only LLMs which are grammar engines and have nothing to do with fact, so LLMs should not be used here.  Larsnooden (discuss • contribs) 08:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have seen what I think is a type fault with LLMs. There are caracteristic spelling errors in English, made by people who have previously learned another language.  Given a question with such a pattern of spelling errors, ChatGPT treats the writing as a separate genre, and gives back spelling errors in the same pattern, which will be unobvious to the writer of the question.  I think that there might be able to be a similar effect, around gaps in coverage in a book outline.  So, if using an AI to write an outline was a bad idea, then the effect would be to make someone equally wrong, while looking more plausible and being more confident.  Jfw01 (discuss • contribs) 23:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * These are interesting considerations—thank you @Larsnooden @Jfw01! It seems like you're saying that with LLMs, the quality of the input determines the quality of the output. In this scenario, even if someone is just generating something like an outline, a poor-quality prompt could generate a poor-quality outline that negatively impacts the scope of a potential book. Did I get that right? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Close. The output quality of LLMs will be factually deficient regardless because the quality of the prompt has no effect on the creativity or, more importantly, the factual accuracy.  Facts don't enter the picture with LLMs.  As language models, they deal with grammar and produce sentences.  Whether those sentences overlap with fact, is pure chance.  LLMs could be misused as grammar checkers, but the result would simply be grammatically correct, plausible sounding sentences, chock full of errors or outright falsehoods.  The current landscape is dominated by LLMs which are not appropriate for legitimate uses.  They can be used to churn out disinformation and chaff at scale, but that goes under the category electronic warfare and not under that of writing electronic books.  LLMs are a small subset of AI, however, and things will change over time but not soon.  (PS. Most early evaluations gushing over LLMs in recent years appear to have been subject to the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect, probably due to the apparent confidence in the sentences.)  Larsnooden (discuss • contribs) 03:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In general, that poor quality prompts often lead to poor quality output that reinforces the poor quality. This is under the assumption, which may be counterfactual, that there are conditions under which there is good quality output. Jfw01 (discuss • contribs) 11:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions for Policy Improvement
I asked PizzaGPT "How can this policy be improved?" among other (in my opinion non useful) things, it suggests: "Provide examples or case studies demonstrating best practices for using AI-generated content on Wikibooks. This can help editors better understand how to effectively incorporate AI tools in their writing and editing processes while minimizing potential risks."

Then I asked also Bing / Copilot:

Suggestions for Policy Improvement by Bing / Copilot

 * 1) Definition of AI: The policy could benefit from a more precise definition of what constitutes "artificial intelligence" or "large language models". This would help users understand exactly what types of tools are being referred to.
 * 2) Risks: While the policy mentions that AI-generated content can be unreliable or incorrect, it might be helpful to provide more specific examples of the types of errors or issues that can arise.
 * 3) Guidelines: The policy could provide more detailed guidelines on how to use AI tools effectively and responsibly. For instance, it could include best practices for vetting AI-generated content or tips for crafting effective prompts.
 * 4) Ethical Considerations: The policy could address ethical considerations related to the use of AI, such as issues of bias or the potential for AI to be used in ways that violate community norms or standards.
 * 5) Review Process: The policy could include a process for reviewing AI-generated content before it's published, to ensure it meets Wikibooks' standards.
 * 6) Disclosure Requirements: The policy could require users to disclose not just the tool used and the prompts given, but also any modifications made to the AI-generated content.

Remember, these are just suggestions. The final decision on how to improve the policy should be made in consultation with the Wikibooks community.

Laurusnobilis (discuss • contribs) 11:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Use of LLMs for this policy (and evidence of issues)
I noticed that @Laurusnobilis actually used LLMs to edit this policy in Special:Diff/4373481 and Special:Diff/4373482. While reviewing these edits, I noticed some key issues that are actually very relevant to the development of the policy. In particular, the LLMs did the following: I had to go back and individually revert a lot of these issues, and I think this provides an excellent case study in the limitations of LLMs here. I'd also like to propose the following: —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed words such that the meaning was different;
 * Changed words and syntax such that the formality/tone was changed in a way that may have been "fancier" but harder to understand for all users of the project;
 * Introduced grammatical/punctuation/spelling errors and made some sentences harder to read.
 * Could we maybe not use LLMs to help write the policy on LLMs? It strikes me as inappropriate.
 * Inclusion into the policy that edits by LLMs containing significant issues can be quickly reverted—I'm concerned about the project having to waste time individually going through and correcting errors inserted by the use of LLMs.

 * Please note that every change suggested by the LLM was manually checked by me, that only a part of the suggested changes were included, and that English is not my native language.
 * Laurusnobilis (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is good to know—thank you. I will note, however, that this in itself does speak to a significant limitation of LLMs that we should take into account when developing the policy. The draft policy currently states: "LLMs should not be used for tasks with which the editor does not have substantial familiarity, and their outputs should be rigorously scrutinized for compliance with all applicable policies. Editors who are not fully aware of the risks associated with LLMs and who are not able to overcome the limitations of these tools should not use them to write books." Because they cannot properly check the output of the LLM, I am not convinced that non-native speakers of a language should use a LLM to make language-based edits—we have just seen that this can cause issues. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, "the policy that edits by LLMs containing significant issues can be quickly reverted" should not depend on whether the changes were generated by a LLm or a human.
 * Laurusnobilis (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Copyright?
Wikipedia has an essay about LLMs violating copyright, maybe we could incorporate some parts of this into the policy.

96.5.246.62 (discuss) 19:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

If training data of LLM violates copyrights and violation can be detected in the future, but not now. Think of a specific wikibook created with GenAI and community works collaboratively to improve that Wikibook and spends hours and hours on derivative work on that WikiBook. Later on all working hours lost due to the fact that the WikiBook has to be removed due to the copyright violation hidden in the used training data of LLM. Maybe it is worth to include that in consideration - could be very frustrating event for the community members. --Bert Niehaus (discuss • contribs) 19:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I agree—that would be frustrating! But it does beg the question: would a book have to be removed simply because the training data of an LLM itself violates copyright? The policy as it stands currently bans LLM-generated content—instead, LLMs could only be used as advisors or for making suggestions. This fact should effectively eliminate the risk of copyrighted content being inserted by an LLM. Thoughts? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I'm not much into this subject, but wouldn't it be better to use AI detectors to find out how much % of a specific text was AI-generated or partially so? I don't know if any of these tells which % (approximately, of course) of the content is human-generated or not, and even if there are any open source tools of this kind (having in mind that all or at least great part of the tools in use on Wikimedia have to be open source and free) or their accurate (I think that the most reliable one in this point is Copyleaks). Anyway, many of these (and, I suppose, the better available) are currently paid ones. And we would still need to decide how much % of the content have to be human-made to not cut it off as intrinsically copyright-violating (and, as exposed in this essay, since LLMs have no personhood and do not have copyright of their own, so we need to verify if it belongs to the company which created it or to the sources of the generated content, and these, due to the fact that AI can summarize thousands of texts in seconds, are probably hard to identify) and standardise (or even create) the detector Wikimedia would use for such. Anyone here understand more about this topic? Magi129 (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Global discussion
Has there been an attempt by the Foundation or the global community to define a policy for AI? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Good question—as far as I've been able to find, there isn't any global policy discussion. Various essays and other non-policy pages I've found are as follows:
 * Commons:Commons:AI-generated media
 * w:Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence
 * w:Wikipedia:Large language models
 * w:Wikipedia:Large language models and copyright
 * Wikilegal/Copyright Analysis of ChatGPT
 * Artificial intelligence
 * meta:Research:Implications of ChatGPT for knowledge integrity on Wikipedia
 * For the moment, it seems up to individual projects to develop their own policies.
 * —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Template
I really like this policy, but I do have a question. When would the template be used? A human is vetting the information already before publishing, right? Is this the sort of thing that needs multiple eyes? Thanks, I can do stuff !  (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

 * How I imagine it is that it's just placed in a relevant piece of content on Wikibooks and is published at the same time as said content, without requiring anyone's editorial oversight. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, but would it just be removed once a different human has gone over it? If so, is the original prompter not enough? I thought the policy required the human prompter to go over the AI's materials before putting them on Wikibooks.
 * Thanks, I can do stuff !  (talk)
 * That's not how I conceived it, but the policy is not finalized. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see your message. How did you conceive of it? I can do stuff !  (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a good question and something I've also been thinking about! One issue I can see with blanket-classifying a page as having AI influence is the question of when the template ultimately gets removed (for how long is it applicable, ship of Theseus-style). I think it's definitely important to have disclosure permanently live on the talk page and in edit histories. And, I think a human should thoroughly vet everything BEFORE publishing. So, I'm now wondering how useful a generic disclosure template would even be on the primary page. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My Two Cents is that the template should function like the pending changes system. I don't know how everything is on the backend, but some sort of flag that the person may have used AI may be useful, but people can write trash anyway, so specifically AI shouldn't be called out with a banner or template or whatever outside of the sending changes banner and something connected to it. I can do stuff !  (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I approve of an AI-generated template. I think that it should not be removed.  I am contemplating one tag with labels for the last date when AI content was added, and the last date of human review.  It might be that these tags end up having to be per-section.  Jfw01 (discuss • contribs) 23:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone, I also agree to the idea of adding an AI generated template to Wikibooks. In that way all wiki users will have easier access to the content they desire. It will also make Wikibooks faster and more efficient to use without any mere issues or certain redirects, it will be like "straight to the point". But why only Wikibooks? I think all Wiki pages/websites must be integrated with an AI template, making it easier to access thew desired information, plus not all of us are English literate, so the AI system must support a wide diversity of languages worldwide. If this plan does succeeds, then Wiki- will become a major information site like Google. Google also has an AI intergrated into computing system but I haven't heard any one complaining about it's use. Rather you people enjoy using Google, and instead of giving other websites/companies to grow/expand, we're busy contemplating it's growth, which is unfair... Wiki should be given the right to do whatever it wants with it's websites. I think let's give them a chance and we'll see what happens further on...I see something amazing will come out of this...and we'll benefit from the results... Zeno C66 (discuss • contribs) 09:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you-all intend to mandate that the reviewing human be independent of the human who added the AI content? If so, do you want a mechanism for tracking and testing that independence?Jfw01 (discuss • contribs) 23:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

My opinion
Copyright issues aside, if we were to allow use of AI, we would be overflowing in AI-generated "books" that are vapid and contain very little interesting content. I do not trust AI to produce material that is interesting to read. Conversely, I can readily spot AI-generated text when reading a passage, because it sounds very robotic. Also, an AI program would probably spit an entire book out in one long text, which does a disservice to our formatting capabilities and subpage system.

While someone might come along and improve an AI-generated book, the most likely outcome is that nobody will, and then we will have a glut of low-quality generated books that drown out the high-quality manually created books. This does not reflect well on the reputation of this project, and it makes our high-quality content much harder to find.

If I were to spot this kind of content in a book, I would remove it because it adds nothing. If I were to find a wikibook that is entirely ChatGPT output, I would nominate it for deletion because it contributes nothing to our mission, which is creating free-content knowledge.

In short: I believe that all AI-generated content should be banned, and that use of AI will automatically be a sanctionable offense. No exceptions. SupremeUmanu (discuss • contribs) 19:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC) (Text modified SupremeUmanu (discuss • contribs) 19:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)).

 * I am no expert on AI generated text, but it appears that this policy also addresses machine translation that can and should be allowed to help bring books published on different language Wikibooks into the English Wikibooks. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am fully in support of using machine translation to bring material from other languages’ Wikibooks into our project. SupremeUmanu (discuss • contribs) 20:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in! I definitely agree that a risk of LLM use is a high volume of poor-quality books. And, I think that the draft policy's stipulation that LLMs "may not be used to generate original material" covers that well. Just to make sure I understand, though: what do you think about someone using an LLM to, say, generate a skeleton outline for a book/page but then actually write the content without the LLM?
 * —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Pinging @SupremeUmanu again to see what you think. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that! I was not monitoring this page. I was indeed focusing on using ChatGPT to create content directly. I am fully in support of using ChatGPT to create outlines; I have used it for that very reason several times. And if we have a policy that says ChatGPT-generated material can be nominated for deletion if appropriate, I’m happy. Thanks so much! SupremeUmanu (discuss • contribs) 20:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Overall comments
This is a great draft that has a good balance in responsible use of AI! Best, — Frostly (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I agree. "Just don't believe anything it claims on its own, and tag it" is already a great policy in itself. 192.208.157.145 (discuss) 20:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Just ban AI books
The flow of them if allowed will be insanely high and lead to the unusability of Wikibooks. WeaponizingArchitecture (discuss • contribs) 19:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Hi @WeaponizingArchitecture. The policy as it stands would indeed prohibit AI-generated content (i.e. "original" text) for exactly the reasons you mentioned—many people here seem to agree with this. But, what do you think about the guidelines on using LLMs as 1) writing advisors (e.g. to provide rough outlines or suggested edits) or 2) machine translators? Not many people have weighed in on these aspects. Thanks! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't remember anyone ever reffering to pre-existing things like google translate as "AI" until this stupid techbro grift got flooded across the net. Could be wrong, but even then if people are using things like google translate for books on Languages they should be banned, google translate is a massive crock of garbageWeaponizingArchitecture (discuss • contribs) 15:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @WeaponizingArchitecture: I am not sure but I think deep (which I know nothing about) is considered AI.
 * As far as your comments about google translate, I have been using it and I find its translations are getting better and better all the time. One thing you can do is translate back and forth a couple of times, then check the latest version against the original. Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 17:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Some languages work fine but a lot of smaller languages, especially non-indo european language settings provide the worst translations ever. WeaponizingArchitecture (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the policy already forbids fully AI written books, but I suspect that even if Wikibooks adopted an "open season" AI policy, not much would happen. Wikibooks isn't popular enough for people to care to write AI books. ForTheGrammar (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It certainly isn't now, but I can imagine the scenario where a slew of AI junk gets spammed here. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for AI generated Media (Watermarked)
I would like to address the issue that unless identified by a human moderator most content for AI generated media would not automatically be identifiable without a disclaimer.

As a result I think it would be useful to have a linked watermark that is used in all AI generated media (photos, videos, etc.) which would link to a page that discribes the prompt used by the human author to obtain the media and which tool was used.

The watermark could be included on the upload page to the wikibooks page with the link permanently linked with the uploaded content so that any copies of the media include both the watermark and the information on the linked page.

At a glance this would allow users of wikibooks to identify AI generated content. Human moderators would have an easier time to validate the media and could identify non referenced AI media.

Food for Thought - BallardB (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You are responsible ...
Hello, i am a rare visitor of wikibook but i use automatic translations sometimes. If the translationsystems a hint how future AI Books look like, i would expect a lot of rubbish.

NTL: the current draft says You are responsible for ensuring that use of an LLM will not disrupt Wikibooks. I thing i have an idea what is intended here, but from the practical point i do not like the sentence: How can i make sure that i do not disrupt Wikibooks ?. Should i ask somebody if the feels disrupted ? Please, drop this line as it is to vague. INHO the other lines are a guideline and ok with me. -- A1000 (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Hi @A1000, I cannot find the text you refer to with the word "disrupt". Are you looking at the current version of the draft?
 * Just curious, Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 23:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Wikibooks:Artificial Intelligence -> Text generation -> 2.
 * hope that helps ... -- A1000 (discuss • contribs) 23:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I think Artificial Intelligence appropriately handles this. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 11:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @A1000, thanks for taking time to continue this exchange.
 * This is the complete paragraph that I see:
 * "2. You are ultimately responsible for the content generated by your use of an LLM. LLMs should not be used for tasks with which the editor does not have substantial familiarity, and their outputs should be rigorously scrutinized for both quality and compliance with all applicable policies. Editors who are not fully aware of the risks associated with LLMs and who are not able to overcome the limitations of these tools may not use them."
 * Do you see something else that shows the word disrupt in it? I am curious because in the past (on other wikis) I noticed that I was looking at an earlier version of pages, and I wonder if this is the case here too. Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * nope, no disrupt;
 * Why this insisting for responsibility ? IMHO it is not possible to distinguish between handwritten and LLM-written; since the uploaded text is with a name the blame will fall on that name and practical this is what you can do -- A1000 (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Because if you aren't responsible for adding the text you added, who is? --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 20:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @A1000! I do think it is necessary to remind people of their responsibility, because it might not be intuitive for everyone. I can easily imagine a scenario where someone adds incorrect or policy-violating material and then argues that it's not their fault since "it was the AI that generated it". —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Reflections from the author of Chatbots for Social Change
I have been working on and off for a few months on a project which brings together research in the social sciences and cutting-edge LLM and machine-learning research to address the question of how chatbots can be used as a mediator or bridge, a universal intermediary and deep understander of persons' perspectives, goals, understandings, etc. As it felt in line with the project I have not been shy about using chatGPT to generate and edit content, as well as help scope and outline the book.

I lie in an interesting intermediate space in this discussion, being an expert in the content I'm having chatGPT help write, and in my experience it has been a great tool to grease the wheels.

That being said, I've found that its writing style, lack of in-depth knowledge, biases, and lack of context of the overall project (I don't put the whole book in each time I ask it to write something) means that in many cases I am better served writing content myself. However, the project as it stands now is very hard to separate into human-only and computer-aided content, and would likely need to be re-written in its entirety. It is by no means complete now, so it would not be a death-blow to the project, but would have a significant impact on the future of the project.

I can speak to the existential question posed in the initial suggestions section, "is there any point to wikibooks if it is just a step removed from asking Chat GPT for something? What is the value-add?" As of now it is impossible without additional tools to write a good wikibook using chatGPT with something as simple as a prompt. In my experience it needs significant guidance to construct something palatable. However, I have built tools as this project has progressed which could serve to break the construction of a wikibook into many smaller tasks, including academic and internet research, outlining, and writing of individual sections automatically. Whether continuing such a process to its conclusion would produce a good textbook, I have no idea. However, if it could do this well, the textbook would still serve a distinct and positive purpose above and beyond what chatting with a chatGPT can serve, just as a textbook serves a distinct purpose from chatting with a knowledgeable instructor. Indeed, if wikibook's content base grows exponentially, filling with high-quality textbooks, there is no problem to be solved. I don't want to diminish concerns of poor content flowing into the platform, though. I understand moderation may be impossible (at least, without the help of a powerful LLM bot).

I don't know what else to contribute here, but given my intense involvement in using chatGPT on wikibooks over the last months, I thought I would throw my voice into the discussion. Please feel free to comment, or ask questions.

--Amcgail (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

 * @Amcgail, thanks so much for bringing Chatbots For Social Change to our attention. I have heard a lot of snippets about the topic of Artificial Intelligence recently, but I still do not understand what is considered AI and what is not. We have used software/computer programs/ applications/machine translations/etc for several decades now so I need to read your book to understand what is different about Chatbots. Also, since I assume that those Chatbots are available now at no (visible) cost, how long will they stay gratis?
 * Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The actual cost of using these is already extremely low. I often use the API, and you can produce 25k words for $1 right now using GPT-4. In addition, I've seen reasonable performance of open-source models running locally on my PC (so that's gratis forever).
 * Also I will just emphasize that the book is very much in progress at the moment, but I can briefly answer your question. Chatbots are fundamentally new in that they can produce coherent text (or at least, coherent-sounding). In the worst-case scenario, one can produce a lot of reasonable-looking text which says incorrect stuff. Medium-worst, it's just a poor or bland presentation, and there's such a flood that it washes away the good stuff on wikibooks.
 * Hope this helps! Amcgail (discuss • contribs) 21:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The climate emergency cost of using LLMs is likely to be huge, as well as the huge use of water. It's not gratis nor is it "extremely low" cost. We cannot pretend that external costs do not exist. We have access to knowledge. Boud (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point! @Ottawahitech was referring to monetary cost, presumably thinking that there may be a substantial paywall in the future. It's true that training these LLMs is extremely energy consumptive, but once they are trained their use is rather minimal in terms of energy consumption, comparing to other normal computing tasks. As I said, we can produce text using an LLM locally on our PCs. One can compare it reasonably with storing some files in the cloud, or browsing the internet. It looks like training GPT-3 took 284 MWh. That's equivalent to powering 27 American homes for a year, or 84 electric vehicles for a year. That's substantial, but it's a one-time energy expenditure, such that the model can be used at minimal energy cost forever after.
 * That being said, there are estimates that all of AI computing takes around 85 TWh per year. That's on par with Bitcoin mining, and a serious deal which should not be overlooked. Image generation is very power-hungry, around 20x to 100x as much as text generation, and something which typically can't be done using consumer electronics. And OpenAI just released footage from their video generation model, which I'm sure is even more power consumptive. Amcgail (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Voting timeline
I believe this draft policy has now been up for a month. I will work on making sure the feedback up to now is incorporated. I think it's reasonable to wait another month before opening a vote, unless others think otherwise. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No idea what we are voting on. Are we allowing AI edits? I suggested a total ban and others may feel the same.--Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Estonia.svg|15px]] [[Image:Flag_of_Ukraine.svg|15px]] talk 05:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Xania! The vote would be on the policy as it is written. From what I've seen in people's comments, it seems like the main concern is specifically with AI-generated content, and the policy currently does ban that. There is some additional nuance, since LLMs can be used in other ways that are not related to generating content. For example, an LLM can suggest an outline for a book, as has been described above and in the policy, and it seems like this is much less controversial. Could you explain your specific concerns that lead you to disagree with the policy as is written? I'd like to make sure they're properly addressed! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Now I see. Hadn't noticed any policy till now. I'll certainly be voting against that. Should be no place for AI tools on Wikibooks (certainly not in the present day).--Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Estonia.svg|15px]] [[Image:Flag_of_Ukraine.svg|15px]] talk 00:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it—though, again, I'd love to know what your specific concerns are so we can try to work through this together. Currently, there is no policy on AI use, which means it would be fully allowed by default if the policy were not enacted (and I don't want AI-generated content here either). Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * AI edits are similar to machine translations. They must be well regulated.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 20:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Disclosure
I am not sure that disclosure on the talk page works for me. The thing that must be disclosed is past input into the substantive page. Disclosure on the substantive page and in the edit summary will stay in step with the page content, because they are all updated together. I see the talk page as somewhat independent, more future focussed, and vulnerable to having content removed while the corresponding content on the substantive page remains.

Jfw01 (discuss • contribs) 00:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Machine translation
From above discussions, it seems like there is sufficient reasoning and perhaps consensus to ban all generative LLM use here. But, there is still an open question of how to address machine translation. If anyone has thoughts on how to address this specifically, it would be great if you could share! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

 * I'd be pretty hesitant to support ai translation really, I think it's a great concept to get wikibooks translated into many more languages, but I'm not sure this actually helps with good, high quality translations
 * like, if I'm a fluent French speaker, and I'm reviewing something written like that, I'm likely not going to be checking everything as finely as I would be were I to translate it myself, there's no way to know how big of an issue this actually will be if allowed, but I've got a suspicion that there would be a lot of low quality or misleading translations that would just never be fixed
 * I also question whether finding someone who is both sufficiently educated on a particular subject and fluent in a given language who would also be unwilling to edit for wikibooks otherwise is likely. I genuinely don't know that this changes anything in a beneficial way in this regard
 * I'm happy for its use in aiding translation, or helping to judge accuracy, but I'm really not in support for the ai being used to translate sections into another language, it feels very similar to the idea of using it to generate books to me Nolshru (discuss • contribs) 16:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Alternatively to machine translations being treated as sovereign entities, a plugin for translating books could be adopted; it could even use something open-source (like LibreTranslate) in order to stay true to FLOSS philosophies :) Chickenenthusiast (discuss • contribs) 02:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

From people's notes and some looking around, I'm thinking that LLMs should not be used for translation. I also think that we should develop a separate content translation policy, using w:Help:Translation, w:Wikipedia:Translation, and w:Wikipedia:Content translation tool as references. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 17:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Summary and consensus
It's been several months now, and I've done my best to adjust the policy based on the multiple viewpoints expressed here in order to represent a consensus. Here is what I see: Did I miss anything? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Overwhelmingly, there is a general consensus that LLMs may not be used to generate content. I think we can confidently accept this part of the policy.
 * There is some debate on whether an LLM may be used as an "assistant", with some people thinking that it should be blanket allowed and some thinking it shouldn't be allowed for reasons of potential error and inaccuracy. However, the policy as currently written bridges this gap by specifying 1) that editors must be familiar with the subject when asking an LLM for suggestions, 2) that editors must be able to justify the changes and are still subject to consensus, and 3) that editors who repeatedly fail to properly use LLMs may be blocked.
 * There is consensus that any LLM use must be disclosed in the edit summary as well as the talk page. There is no consensus on whether the page itself must be marked.

 * I disagree with your conclusions. There is no overwhelming consensus. There are a few persons opposed, a lot of request for clarifications and even more confusions.
 * My view is that LLMs or any AI assistant are Tools (like a spell checker). No content fully automatically generated should be used on Wikibooks (this is covered in part by the bot policy) that all edits continue to be the responsibility of the contributors as well as basic quality control (that also falls to the community) that content is king and any copyright dispute should be responded but not preemptively restrict content inclusion on the grounds of possibilities or vague nuances.
 * My understanding is that LLMs creations are public domain (Under, and only relevant, US law) it is not our function or job to protect the copyrights of anyone else but our own and the aggregate (the project). So the only concern is the impact of any dispute that my rise in regard to each project (in this we are distinct from Wikipedia and each project should work out any issues internally). I do not see why the community should impose a project wide limitation. Nor have seen any argument that justifies it...
 * There is also the problem regarding how could you detect violations ? Why would the community check for violations if they could be useful with subsequent edits. The only way I can see for detecting problems is with a massive dump of at least almost valid content (not spam or vandalism), in so large a scale that it would overwhelm the community regarding examining content correctness, this is exactly what the bot policy deals with.
 * The issue seems to be reduced to the fear of automation and a perception of dilution regarding human responsibility and supremacy. Like the referred policy draft regarding translation (a draft, not a policy). Again, the contributor of content is responsible by the contributed content. What the community should objects is that but error or abuse irreversible damage is done to the project. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Panic2k4 thank you for weighing in! To make sure I understand you, let me see if I can summarize your points:
 * Non-human-generated content: No completely automatically generated content should be allowed; the primary risk of auto-generated content is overwhelming community moderation capacity.
 * Copyrights: We shouldn't be responsible for "protecting" the copyright of non-project creators (I admit I don't understand this argument).
 * Detection: There's no point in trying to identify violations of this policy (I don't fully understand this either).
 * Overall: We don't need a specific AI policy because aspects of it are already covered elsewhere, and editors should already be held responsible for content they add.
 * Did I get everything right? Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Non-human-generated contributions (not content, we have no way to police that or need). Not all contributions involve content, it may be simply format or even bureaucratic work (making it automatic and or large numbers) is already covered in the bot policy.
 * Copyright, like authorship, is claimed, not attributed. While the copyright law (pushed internationally by the US) that removed the obligation to state the copyright notice made the public obligated in the default expectation that all content is owned unless it states it is not (this is idiotic and everyone not in the content industry should excuse himself to operate under this unwritten expectation). We can even point to the DMCA as a prof that the expectation is unworkable. Copyright is granted to authors as incentive,  So yes one should act only on the protection of the rights he holds and as a contributor to Wikibooks to the aggregate that holds one's work. No other obligation falls to the community (us).
 * What may be confusing you is that a contribution is himself licensing content and in that case to Wikibooks, so obligated in ways that goes beyond the community as to protect himself by what he is “giving” us and the right he holds over it. Wikibooks community is not made of only content contributors, and in fact the project itself works to “liberate” to a reasonable working level any ownership and control interest that those contributors have over their contributed work.
 * Do you have a fail-safe way to detect content that has been generated by AI ? I do not think so, even water marked content can be falsified. Why should the community spend resources attempting to do that ? Who benefits from that ?
 * Overall, you got it. No valid need for the policy was given. I believe that some validity may be found in a per-project case (it depends on the content and contributor) that goes more into vandalism or copyright infringement things we already have covered or finally by our bot policy.  Panic (discuss • contribs) 05:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * one should act only on the protection of the rights he holds and as a contributor to Wikibooks to the aggregate that holds one's work. No other obligation falls to the community (us). The use of copyrighted material without permission is illegal, so it's better for WikiMedia communities to police themselves than for the project to get dragged to court or face other legal action.
 * This is relevant to the discussion at hand because LLMs can reproduce copyrighted text. Clarinetguy097 (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. The use of copyright material depends on the license (it does not require express permission) and the copyright state of the work. That is why copyright is claimed not attributed and in certain jurisdictions one pays taxes on the benefits over that IP (do not particularly know the minutia on the US state that affects Wikibooks donations).
 * Now each donation is a license to us by the contributor. So any liability for the donation under our license falls to the contributor, not us. We will never use any content without permission on Wikibooks, the issue is that permission (or the right to license it to us) may not exist and this would poison our work that used that content. This may be a greater problem to Wikipedia due to edit speed and that the articles only seen as having value independently (as part of a bigger work) but on Wikibooks each book project is isolated to a large degree and edits are slower and mostly by the same people (legally all books are part of a bigger book that is Wikibooks as we share the same setup and licensing. In the Cookbook this direct relation to Wikipedia is even more closely represented as each recipe constitute an independent unit of content).
 * So no, disagree we do not need to police ourselves more than we already do. The copyright holders does. I have mentioned in previous discussion around these subjects: it should be made as clear as possible to all copyrightable content contributors what doing so imply. But we live in a world that most don't care with about this issues, that is why large corporation exist around and people blindly "volunteer" work on Youtube etc... (regarding rights and compensation).
 * Regarding the Wikimedia being dragged to court because of a legal action about Wikibooks content that would be extremely hard, you should check the book projects we delete. In any case no one is objecting that volunteers do not verify large consistent contributions of content for copyright infringement but if you read above how would you do that regarding AI expressly after it has been defined what they produce as uncopyrightable...
 * It is beyond a LLM (as defined and if not intentionally created to do so) to replicate anything it consumes exactly, especially so if it has a large base of material learned as probabilistic would make it even harder to select the exact tokens in order. More good LLMs use filters that make them more variable on their responses. A true LLM has no memory, the model is a virtual coral like network structure of strongly connected tokens. In fact efforts are being made to trim that structure by removing unnecessary tokens/connections to make it small and more exact ,even task oriented. Now an LLM has no real memory beyond the tokens it keeps but an AI Agent could have a memory and most web facing agents that serve as portals to the LLMs of the big corporations  may indeed have not only memory for the history of the prompts but keep and access data repositories (of all prompts and all content archived) but that is a copyright issue for those large corporations and their paying users not us at  Wikibooks especially as what I kniow is that products of AI are not copyrightable, even if it replicated a work the layers of isolation between that and us is too large. Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, WikiBooks does have liability (WB:COPY).
 * As for LLMs copying content, they've already been copying stuff closely enough to count as plagiarism. Of course, once somebody develops an LLM that never plagiarizes, there will be no need for disclosures of AI-generated content (s). Clarinetguy097 (discuss • contribs) 16:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That refers to use of the “given content” to the Wikibooks. It documents the obligations to us for use of our content. Now the liability for breaking our requirements is mostly null (this goes off-topic) but most of the violations (to my knowledge) are fixed by a request by Wikimedia to fix it or ignored and not pursued legally (often our content is already public domain or non-copyrightable or contributed anonymously there is also the point that re-use of Wikimedia content is rarely commercial and violation are mostly about removing any mention to Wikimedia brands and rebranding the content). Again, not our content to protect seems to be the rule of thumb.
 * "copying stuff closely enough to count as plagiarism" I myself have not been convinced by those that are crying wolf due to fears of AI and devaluation of their “creative” work. Again, LLMs by definition do not copy (they can't) they may recreate something very similar by mere chance. A copy requires the duplication of the original from source, they do not have that. As I said, an AI agent (or a simple bot, algorithm) with access to memory of works would easily make a copy. That is already covered on our policy.
 * Do not trust most of the media fire and brimstone regarding LLMs or they miraculous abilities they have, these are media exaggerations to protect its own interest groups. If you want to worry about it consider the evolutions of more complex AI agents that may use LLMs models to make sense of reality, and the level of autonomy they will be granted. Panic (discuss • contribs) 21:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikibooks talk:Artificial Intelligence


text:
User talk:JCrue

Welcome!
Welcome, JCrue!

If you have any questions, you can ask in the assistance reading room or possibly contact me personally. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:JCrue


text:
Talk:Gambas/Comments

input
How to get data  from input 2.179.98.177 (discuss) 06:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gambas/Comments


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. e4/1...e5/2. Nf3/2...Nc6/3. Bb5/3...Qf6/4. d4

=Ruy Lopez - 4_d4!?=

The move 4. d4 is an aggressive and risky response to black's move, after Black plays 3...Qf6, a sideline. The idea is to sacrifice a pawn for a strong attack on the black king and the center. The move 4. d4 has the following pros and cons:

Advantages:

 * 1) It opens up the center and creates more space for White's pieces.
 * 2) It threatens to win the black e-pawn with 5.dxe5 or 5.Nxe5, or to fork the black queen and knight with 5.Nd5.
 * 3) It prepares to bring the knight or the bishop to the d-file, creating more threats and possibilities for tactics.

Disadvantages:

 * 1) While White attacks the bishop on c5, the line 4...exd4 5. Nxd4 Bb6, where Black's bishop goes on a more active square or, exchange with 5...Bxd4. Black can capture the pawn with 4...exd4, and White has to prove that they have enough compensation to stop the strong bishop on b6.
 * 2) It exposes the white king to a possible attack by the black queen on h4, especially after White castles short. Black can also play g5 to prevent White from playing Bg5 or Ng5.
 * 3) Other than capturing, It allows Black to play 4...d6, defending the e5-pawn more and preparing to play Be7 followed by O-O, with a solid and safe position.

The move 4. d4 is a very sharp and complex move, which requires a lot of calculation and accuracy from both sides. It can lead to many different variations.

Continuations:

 * 1) The Cordel Gambit: 4...exd4 5.O-O Ne5 6.Nxe5 Qxe5 7.c3 Bc5 8.cxd4 Bxd4 9.Nc3
 * 2) The Schlechter Variation: 4...exd4 5.O-O Bc5 6.e5 Qg6 7.Bxc6 dxc6 8.Nxd4 Ne7
 * 3) The Alapin Variation: 4...exd4 5.e5 Qe6 6.O-O Bc5 7.Bxc6 dxc6 8.Nxd4 Qd5
 * 4) The Leonhardt Variation: 4...exd4 5.e5 Qg6 6.O-O Bc5 7.c3 dxc3 8.Nxc3 Nge7


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. e4/1...e5/2. Nf3/2...Nc6/3. Bb5/3...d5

3... d5
This suspicious move allows 4.Nxe5 netting a pawn due to pin on the Nc6

'''1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d5'''


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. e4/1...e5/2. Nf3/2...Nc6/3. Bb5/3...a6/4. Ba4/4...Bc5

4...Bc5
Black develops the bishop and attacks the f7 pawn

5.Nxe5 is the main move

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Bc5


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. e4/1...e5/2. Nf3/2...Nc6/3. Bb5/3...a6/4. Ba4/4...Bc5/5. Nxe5

5.Nxe5
White sacrifices a knight for a for fork trick however black can play /5...Qh4/ or /5...Qg5/


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. e4/1...e5/2. Nf3/2...Nc6/3. Bb5/3...a6/4. Ba4/4...Bc5/5. Nxe5/5...Qh4

5...Qh4!
5...Qh4! aims to create counterplay instead of losing a pawn to a fork
 * 6...0-0 - Main Line
 * 6...Nd3 - Vienna Line


text:
Chess Opening Theory/1. e4/1...e5/2. Nf3/2...Nc6/3. Bb5/3...a6/4. Ba4/4...f5

Similar to actual Schliemann Defense.

'''1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 f5'''


text:
Category:Pages using WikiHiero

__HIDDENCAT__

title: Category:Pages using WikiHiero


text:
Category:Pages with foreign language text

__HIDDENCAT__


text:
User talk:A09

Welcome!
Welcome, A09!

If you have any questions, you can ask in the assistance reading room or possibly contact me personally. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 02:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:A09


text: Category:Catfish recipes

title: Category:Catfish recipes


text:
User talk:Rziff

Welcome!
Welcome, Rziff!

If you have any questions, you can ask in the assistance reading room or possibly contact me personally. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 06:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rziff