Talk:Artificial intelligence: Difference between revisions

Line 35:

:::::I'd absolutely appreciate further input on this, as I don't think it's a completely settled issue for the wiki, and the boundries of what is and isn't in-scope are not firmly drawn yet. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 13:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think @[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] is making some important points. I think it will take a lot of work, but this article can be restructured to be within scope. The core issue I see with it as of now is broadness and generalized issues. If this theme article could be structured around real incidents and very specific issues and such, it makes for a good article. I can work on it a bit to get it up to a higher quality standard, at least reworking the structure itself (and the text secondary) [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

::::::A hypothetical question on the scope: What about the relation between a citizen and a government, government agency? Would that be in scope or out of scope for the wiki? (I couldn't find anything that said one way or the other about this in the guidelines. If this is spelled out someplace already, maybe it could be made clearer in the inclusion guidelines.)

::::::To me, governments (and govt. agencies) seem similar to corporations, but obviously there are also differences. (Would a church or a university count as a corporation?)

::::::Presumably an issue between a private utility and customers would be in scope. What about a public utility?

::::::Another example, Albania just appointed an AI as a "minister" to oversee procurement. If that AI were to do a rug-pull for example on a bunch of individuals, how would one figure out the scope?

::::::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)

:::'''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 35: / Line 35: @@
 :::::I'd absolutely appreciate further input on this, as I don't think it's a completely settled issue for the wiki, and the boundries of what is and isn't in-scope are not firmly drawn yet. [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 13:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
 ::::::I think @[[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] is making some important points. I think it will take a lot of work, but this article can be restructured to be within scope. The core issue I see with it as of now is broadness and generalized issues. If this theme article could be structured around real incidents and very specific issues and such, it makes for a good article. I can work on it a bit to get it up to a higher quality standard, at least reworking the structure itself (and the text secondary) [[User:Beanie Bo|Beanie Bo]] ([[User talk:Beanie Bo|talk]]) 13:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
+::::::A hypothetical question on the scope:  What about the relation between a citizen and a government, government agency?  Would that be in scope or out of scope for the wiki?  (I couldn't find anything that said one way or the other about this in the guidelines.  If this is spelled out someplace already, maybe it could be made clearer in the inclusion guidelines.)
+::::::To me, governments (and govt. agencies) seem similar to corporations, but obviously there are also differences.  (Would a church or a university count as a corporation?)
+::::::Presumably an issue between a private utility and customers would be in scope.  What about a public utility?
+::::::Another example, Albania just appointed an AI as a "minister" to oversee procurement.  If that AI were to do a rug-pull for example on a bunch of individuals, how would one figure out the scope?
+::::::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)
 :::'''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.