Talk:Artificial intelligence: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

VisualWikitext

Add topic

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 ::::::I am inclined to think including governments in addition to corporations may make sense.  But I does that open up another hairy can of worms?    [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 03:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
 :::::::@[[User:Keith|Keith]] for the above. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 03:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
+:::::::The more I look, the more I am getting confused about scope.  Looking at the listing of Mr. Rossman's videos on this wiki [[Louis Rossmann - Video Directory]] (many of which seem to be prompting having an article made relating to them), I clearly don't see what makes something a company & consumer issue.
+:::::::Specifically: Items about stripe, square and visa charging fees to small businesses (maybe I can see this, if small business is considered a gray area).  Bunch of things about military and right to repair, (where is the consumer in that?).  John Deere vs. farmers - what fraction of that is is individual consumers (as compared to small/midsized/large business).
+:::::::Note, my intention is not to criticize here, I appreciate the work people are putting in on this.  I am not saying any of the above should not be here, I am just trying to figure out why those are okay, but not some of the items above.
+:::::::For example, what about DRM where [[Medical ventilators]] have to be blessed by factory authorized dealer?  (Which was an issue at the beginning of covid, when suddenly a lot of ventilators were needed.)  [This affected patients ("consumers"), but it is nominally between a business and a hospital (i.e., a business or governmental entity).]
+:::::::If this needs discussion, it should probably be in some more visible talk page.  Feel free to link to a better spot, or I will look for a better spot to ask when I get time.   [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
+::::::::I agree completely that we need more clarity, and it's not something I have a fully formed idea of - it's conversations like these that will be essential to working out exactly where we draw the line. I'm starting to lean towards the ides of classing a 'consumer' as 'the buyer in a buyer-seller relationship, where an individual buyer, or the users of a purchased device, does/do not have sufficient leverage to affect the practices of the seller'.
+::::::::--
+::::::::The video directory is more of a 'here's a bunch of stuff, some of it will probably be relevant' situation, so it shouldn't be automatically expected that what's on there is in scope. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 10:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
+:::::::For the question on Governments, maybe a better way to look at it is a consumer-seller relationship, rather than explicitly a consumer-'company' one. I think any rule that would allow an article about a private utility doing something, but not a public one, would be silly.
+:::::::This pulls into the question, though, articles like [[Flock License Plate Readers]]. My 'gut feeling' is that this is an article that belongs on the wiki, however I acknowledge that the framework I've constructed would most likely exclude it (which probably means the framework needs adjusting, or clarifying). [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 23:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
 :::'''Control of information.'''  Access to information is one of the central pillars of right to repair.  Since AI radically changes what information people access, I am missing why it is out of scope.
 :::AI summaries in search lead to:  Loss of independent journalism.[https://www.404media.co/the-medias-pivot-to-ai-is-not-real-and-not-going-to-work/ The Media's Pivot to AI Is Not Real and Not Going to Work]  Loss of review sights.  Reviews provided by AI regurgitate manufacturer specs, give incorrect information about products, give questionable recommendations.[https://housefresh.com/beware-of-the-google-ai-salesman/ Beware of the Google AI salesman and its cronies] I haven't seen sources on this, but I see no reason why sites that post repair information/fora would be exempted from this widespread pattern.
@@ Line 62: / Line 72: @@
 :::::The only way I could see this article remaining is if it narrows the scope to common practices found all across AI/LLM's, which would only happen if incidents are compiled from ChatGPT, Claude, etc.. and even then, that's me being optimistic about it. I still can't see that working out in the long term. This wiki is based on advocacy, which means that the articles have to specifically detail events or practices that violate consumer rights in a tangible, direct way. Not indirectly. Not abstractly. Things that can be pointed to in a court of law.
 :::::Keith is the admin here, so I defer to him of course. But what I expressed above is just my personal take on it as a moderator and from what I've grasped from the other moderators, from the wiki policy, from Louis himself (in videos), etc. [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 04:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
+::::::(also @[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]]) I think there can be a place for an AI article, and there's definitely consumer-relevant stuff to talk about, and we certainly shouldn't do anything that would nuke this talk page (as I imagine this is a discussion which will come up again). For now, I'd say having this be a large page where we include all the broadly AI-related consumer protection issues makes sense, and it serves as a good place to discuss which sub-sections ought to be included. It might be that later on, the 'AI' page gets reduced to a very short page which mostly serves to act as a hub between various, more specific, pages on things like LLM platforms, upselling of AI integrations, whatever else - but it will need to be a big page before it can become a small page (if that makes sense).
+::::::@[[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] I think any article like this would be classified as a 'theme' article, which can address broader trends without invoking specific examples at every stage (though citations and examples are, of course, always welcome).
+::::::Regardless, I think the overarching objective of this article shouldn't be "an article trying to outline why AI is bad or anti-consumer" (not saying that's what it is at the moment, just addressing Beanie's point), but rather "here is a collection of descriptions of the anti-consumer practices commonly associated with AI", with (for now) subsections that talk about different such practices, and eventually links to other articles that go into those areas in more detail. I think people are often going to want to click on an article called "AI", and that this would be the best way of making an "AI" article useful and informative to a reader without straying from the scope of the wiki. Does that sound sensible? [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
+:::::::@[[User:Keith|Keith]] Sounds sensible to me.  Pretty much what I was thinking.  Here is what might help a consumer understand as background to specific cases about "AI".  [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
 ==Appeal posted re proposed deletion==