Talk:ChatGPT
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Not dictionary material, I believe. PUC – 14:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Delete unless it can be shown WT:BRAND is satisfied. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm surprised you didn't RFD Italian as well. DonnanZ (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's big news, and some day will be remembered far better than the also seminal video game Doom (for which we seem to preserve an entry), but I dunno: it's still a proper noun for a single brand-like system or entity, not a generic thing like the Internet. Weak delete. Equinox ◑ 02:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't WT:BRAND an RFV question, given it demands (certain kinds of) cites? I admit it would take some extremely creative searching to uncover relevant cites... This, that and the other (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- This should pass eventually, and could likely pass now if someone were to search in the right places, though I wont be expending that effort myself so i dont expect others to. All I'll say is that I've seen plenty of nonliteral use such as "the ChatGPT version" and the like. I saw one person using "[username]GPT" for someone who made a bunch of scripted posts on Twitter, which would suggest GPT might be a word too (or maybe we've come full circle and it just means the original sense of GPT), but as other AI bots take off, that one might fall out of use. —Soap— 18:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Keep by WT:BRAND. Imetsia (talk (more)) 16:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Keep by WT:BRAND. This will be an enduring term in AI history - unless the machines wipe us out, that is. - 11:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I believe this is becoming genericized short-hand. People now use the term "ChatGPT" to refer to any AI writing tool. Purplebackpack89 19:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I am boldly converting this to an RFV. As @This, that and the other noted, whether WT:BRAND is satisfied is an RFV issue; sentiments like "I've seen plenty of nonliteral use" and "this is becoming genericized short-hand" aren't particularly useful unless qualifying quotations are actually added to the entry. At the moment the citations page contains only possible verb uses of the word. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)