[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: ChatGPT results are "subject to review"

Subject: Re: ChatGPT results are "subject to review"
From: "Piez, Wendell A. (Fed) wendell.piez@xxxxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2023 15:39:01 -0000
Re:  ChatGPT results are "subject to review"
Hi Dorothy,

Among the interesting points made in your report is that it cannot actually
check well-formedness. It says it can, but it is lying.

(Or it would be lying were it capable of lying. What it is doing is what it
was programmed to do, namely chat with you about your topic of choice.)

Regards, Wendell

From: Dorothy Hoskins dorothy.hoskins@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 11:46 AM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:  ChatGPT results are "subject to review"

I recently ran a small exercise in ChatGPT. I provided it a sample input and
output that would require it to put text from a footnote in XML input and
insert it a popup-enabled span in the HTML output where the footnote reference
number appeared in the source XML.
The first stylesheet generated in the results returned was written in XSLT 1,
as I forgot to prompt for an XSLT verion.
I asked ChatGPT to rewrite in XSLT 2, taking advantage of any XSLT 2 features
that would improve the efficiency of the transform, which it did and explained
what it did.
Then I asked for a version 3 XSLT and got that with some new function, so now
I can compare how the same transformation concept was treated in the XSLT
ChatGPT included comments in each XSLT and its own explanation for the
templates in the text thread about the XSLT. Seems like a good learning tool,
although all generated code must be reviewed and tested to see if the results
are indeed the same output.
Along the way, I saw that ChatGPT had thrown in a concat() when building a
text string for an attribute. When I prompted ChatGPT to explain why it
included the concat(), it apologized and said the concat() wasn't necessary,
regenerated the previous XSLT and explained its reason for the change.
Obviously, a person who doesn't look closely at the generated code, or doesn't
know much XSLT, might not have seen the concat() as an issue. So user beware.
>From what I understand, I could try the exact same prompt with sample inputs
and outputs and might be given a different result, but I haven't done that
investigation yet.
Other observation from trying out XML in ChatGPT: it can check well-formedness
but had problems discerning the XML declaration and the root element when
there wasn't a line break between them, so it incorrectly stated that there
was no root elements and produced a default <document> root and put all the
rest of the XML elements into it to retain the hierarchy. It also generated a
partial XML result with comments about where more XML elements occurred,
rather than providing the entire XML tree in the generated XML it
It is capable of generating a schema, a schematron and an Xspec from sample
XML, all of which would require testing, but it sure is fast. A quick way to
create stubs for future development.
I think if someone invested in a training set for a specific schema with a
bunch of examples, it would be a great tool for XML/XSLT development, always
"subject to review".
Regards, Dorothy

XSL-List info and archive<http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list>
EasyUnsubscribe<http://lists.mulberrytech.com/unsub/xsl-list/3302254> (by

Current Thread


Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
First Name
Last Name
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.