Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AI era

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI era

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entire article reads like a

WP:CRYSTAL essay and contains nothing that isn't covered better in the many other AI-related articles, most of which are linked. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Remove the speculation and the hyperbole, and there is nothing covered here that isn't already done better elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a platform for crystal-ball gazing essays. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to remove any speculation, I don't believe it belongs in the article or at least should be reworded to be more neutral and merely quoting and documenting the various perspectives of what people and organization are anticipating. Mr Vili talk 18:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Economics, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More 'basic machine learning rebranded as a buzzword'
WP:MADEUP, except I'm sure a kid's game would actually be playable compared to this grown adult's invented nonsense. Nate • (chatter) 02:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

It should probably be noted here that the 'Periods of AI era' section contains blatant

WP:OR. It cites a June 2024 publication for the 'nomenclature', while citing an article from 2019 for 'defining events'. The 2019 article (paywalled unfortunately) can not possibly be defining words before they were invented. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

No question it's OR, and it looks like it's sourced from a blatant pay-for-play paper mill. Nate • (chatter) 14:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete For all we know this could end up being the "LLM Era", the lead of which could very well end "LLMs were eventually abandoned when it was determined that they and Bitcoin mining were consuming half the energy budget of the planet to produce a great deal of unreliable and even hoax output." A pure distillation of hype and
WP:CRYSTAL that needs to be suppressed before it's used by the unwary to bring this monstrosity to life in the internet wilds. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
This is not just the LLM era, practically all experts at this stage agree that AI will continue improving and surpassing humans at more and more tasks with no signs of a coming plateau from scaling. This will inadvertently lead to the development of AGI, significant job losses and restructuring of human society.

Nothing about it is really hype, and nothing in the article is predicting anything in the future as fact, its merely documenting what independent and notable sources are anticipating. Mr Vili talk 18:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got my copy of Computer Power and Human Reason when it was brand-new and I was in high school, so I think I have a sufficient history of seeing the various World-Changing Advances In Artificial Intelligence go by the wayside, one by one, to be dubious about this one whose experience by the public is only a year or so old. We are still in the hype/panic stage of LLMs, and there's no telling whether or not they're going to be a dead end like all the rest. For all we know, in a couple of years everyone could be saying "well, THAT was a bad idea" or it could become a festering backwater like blockchain. It's simply too soon to proclaim an era, and an encyclopedia doesn't get points for being the first to jump on the bandwagon. Mangoe (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it has the purpose of documenting the hundreds of media articles that are claiming the start of an AI era, the fact that every major tech company focusing on the development of artificial general intelligence, and we are indisputably heading towards a post-AGI future Mr Vili talk 18:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite can you please let me know which other article there is on wikipedia dedicated to documenting the large-scale ongoing effects of AI. Clearly there is hundreds of media articles, scholarly articles and reports from extremely notable organizations that are clearly pointing describing it as the next industrial revolution and a new era in human history.

The closest is the AI boom, but that is merely covering the technological perspective, but as far as I'm aware there is nothing documenting the ongoing effects and anticipated post-AGI world... Even if a post-AGI world is never actualized, it's large-scale anticipation is worthy of encyclopedic coverage, considering Google, Meta, OpenAI, Microsoft, and many other of the largest tech companies are all narrowing down to develop AGI, with some explicitly making that their mission.

To say that doesn't deserve any encyclopedic coverage seems absurd Mr Vili talk 18:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - a tertiary source. It should encyclopaedically cover subjects as discussed in independent reliable secondary sources, and is not a publisher of original research. This page is not a summary of a subject in independent reliable secondary sources. No anthropologists are writing about the mesonoetic period. That table of periods, for instance, is sourced to an article on Daniweb, an online technology forum. Is it reliable? the writer claims to be a journalist, but I see not sign any editor seriously touched that piece. It is, in any case, a primary source for the information it is supporting. If the writer makes up the period names, it's a primary source used here. And he certainly seems to have made them up. He definitely doesn't reference anything for them. Building an article from a mishmash of this kind of information is fundamentally flawed - and what s true there is true throughout. This is OR, and should be deleted per
WP:NOT. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Not encyclopedic. The predictions are unsubstantiated and are sourced from those profiting from them. There are more than enough articles about actual current developments in the field. Swinub (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merge of any relevant content into AI boom may be the course of action which should be taken. This merge was proposed a few months ago, and while these two articles cover slightly different timespans, they have related topics. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 23:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any content merged would first require verification to ensure that it was cited to a reliable source, and that it accurately represented what the source had to say. Having looked at the sources cited, and what they are supposedly being cited for, I suspect that there would be very little left to merge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose merge of what would be OR being merged into the AI boom page. A merge would damage that page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not all hyped news pieces need their article, it should be covered either in AI boom or in the History of AI. Artem.G (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.