Talk:Artificial intelligence: Difference between revisions

Line 31:

:::I agree that subdivisiion probably makes sense. However, at this point I don't have a clear idea of what bits to split off. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

:::I am unclear why those particular items seem out of scope. Perhaps you could give more detail? What scoping rule do they violate? Is it because they are primarily "old" consumer concerns, rather than "new" ones? [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 09:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

::::Upon rereading @[[User:Keith|Keith]]'s post, I think maybe I see a bit of how we see these issues differently. I see all of the issues I mentioned through the lense of how they affect the general public. (Whether users, or non-users who are affected by AI or its uses.) Therefore, I see them all as "consumer" issues. [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 10:21, 13 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 31: / Line 31: @@
 :::I agree that subdivisiion probably makes sense.  However, at this point I don't have a clear idea of what bits to split off.  [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 08:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
 :::I am unclear why those particular items seem out of scope.  Perhaps you could give more detail?  What scoping rule do they violate?  Is it because they are primarily "old" consumer concerns, rather than "new" ones?  [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 09:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
+::::Upon rereading @[[User:Keith|Keith]]'s post, I think maybe I see a bit of how we see these issues differently.  I see all of the issues I mentioned through the lense of how they affect the general public.  (Whether users, or non-users who are affected by AI or its uses.)  Therefore, I see them all as "consumer" issues.  [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 10:21, 13 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.