Talk:Artificial intelligence: Difference between revisions
→Scope?: Reply |
→Scope?: Reply |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
:::::::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).] | :::::::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) | :::::::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. | :::'''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. | :::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 70: | Line 75: | ||
::::::@[[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). | ::::::@[[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) | ::::::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== | ==Appeal posted re proposed deletion== | ||