Talk:Generative artificial intelligence - Revision history

Drakeula: Drakeula moved page Talk:Generative AI to Talk:Generative artificial intelligence: Misspelled title: Is an abbreviation

2025-10-11T21:43:38Z

Drakeula moved page Talk:Generative AI to Talk:Generative artificial intelligence: Misspelled title: Is an abbreviation

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:43, 11 October 2025
(No difference)

Keith at 12:56, 18 January 2025

2025-01-18T12:56:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:56, 18 January 2025
Line 6:		Line 6:
	For example, the currently listed DeviantArt incident makes sense to include, but I think the Stability AI incident is probably beyond the scope of the Wiki. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)		For example, the currently listed DeviantArt incident makes sense to include, but I think the Stability AI incident is probably beyond the scope of the Wiki. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

	Yeah, the StabilityAI one was a bit of a stretch tbh. I mostly just wanted to seed the page with some examples for people to eventually expand off of and used what I had previously researched as a basis. As for the scope of employee replacement, I want to focus it on rather the content the consumer receives being of lesser quality directly because of staff being replaced with AI. Would be ideal to leave a permanent comment for future contributors that reminds people of this scope, plus elaborates it better within the general controversy section, which probably should be updated to something like "General Consumer Rights Controversies". [[User:JamesTDG\|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG\|talk]]) 12:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)		:Yeah, the StabilityAI one was a bit of a stretch tbh. I mostly just wanted to seed the page with some examples for people to eventually expand off of and used what I had previously researched as a basis. As for the scope of employee replacement, I want to focus it on rather the content the consumer receives being of lesser quality directly because of staff being replaced with AI. Would be ideal to leave a permanent comment for future contributors that reminds people of this scope, plus elaborates it better within the general controversy section, which probably should be updated to something like "General Consumer Rights Controversies". [[User:JamesTDG\|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG\|talk]]) 12:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			::No worries, that all makes sense! I'll go and add that note if you haven't already [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 12:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

JamesTDG: /* Relevancy concerns */

2025-01-18T12:27:52Z

Relevancy concerns

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:27, 18 January 2025
Line 5:		Line 5:

	For example, the currently listed DeviantArt incident makes sense to include, but I think the Stability AI incident is probably beyond the scope of the Wiki. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)		For example, the currently listed DeviantArt incident makes sense to include, but I think the Stability AI incident is probably beyond the scope of the Wiki. [[User:Keith\|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith\|talk]]) 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

			Yeah, the StabilityAI one was a bit of a stretch tbh. I mostly just wanted to seed the page with some examples for people to eventually expand off of and used what I had previously researched as a basis. As for the scope of employee replacement, I want to focus it on rather the content the consumer receives being of lesser quality directly because of staff being replaced with AI. Would be ideal to leave a permanent comment for future contributors that reminds people of this scope, plus elaborates it better within the general controversy section, which probably should be updated to something like "General Consumer Rights Controversies". [[User:JamesTDG\|JamesTDG]] ([[User talk:JamesTDG\|talk]]) 12:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Keith: Created page with "== Relevancy concerns == Hi, thank you for contributing! I like the idea for having a theme article, or general category, surrounding issues relating to Gen AI, and I think this is a great start! I just wanted to give you a heads up though - There have been many situations where a company has treated its consumers unethically with, or in relation to, GenAI. Whether its through forcing them to give up their data, or through forcing poor implementations of GenAI onto th..."

2025-01-18T12:14:06Z

Created page with "== Relevancy concerns == Hi, thank you for contributing! I like the idea for having a theme article, or general category, surrounding issues relating to Gen AI, and I think this is a great start! I just wanted to give you a heads up though - There have been many situations where a company has treated its consumers unethically with, or in relation to, GenAI. Whether its through forcing them to give up their data, or through forcing poor implementations of GenAI onto th..."

New page

== Relevancy concerns ==
Hi, thank you for contributing! I like the idea for having a theme article, or general category, surrounding issues relating to Gen AI, and I think this is a great start!

I just wanted to give you a heads up though - There have been many situations where a company has treated its consumers unethically with, or in relation to, GenAI. Whether its through forcing them to give up their data, or through forcing poor implementations of GenAI onto the consumer and removing better alternatives. We need to be careful though - worker replacement, and the ethical issues surrounding collection of training data from the open web, are a bit beyond the scope of the wiki, which we want to keep squarely focused on consumer issues, rather than general corporate maleficence or controversies.

For example, the currently listed DeviantArt incident makes sense to include, but I think the Stability AI incident is probably beyond the scope of the Wiki. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 12:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)