Talk:Artificial intelligence: Difference between revisions

Line 59:

::::If there had not been an article on AI, I would have started a draft on my personal page (if one can do that here). Since there is something here, there may be value in continuing it where multiple people can contribute.

::::If you want the article and talk page and all deleted, I would prefer not. As an alternative to deletion - Is there some way to mark this article as a draft/needing significant revision? (Most of my wiki experience is on wikipedia. I am still trying to pick up the policies/systems/etc. here.) [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 02:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

:::::Sorry, I should've been more descriptive. The way I see it, an article trying to outline why AI is bad or anti-consumer is like trying to say how social media is anti-consumer, or the internet is anti-consumer, etc. They're all simply too broad to write about. And, in reality, they're just tools. Social media can be anti-consumer in many ways, but it can be pro-consumer as well. Same with AI.

:::::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)

==Appeal posted re proposed deletion==

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 ::::If there had not been an article on AI, I would have started a draft on my personal page (if one can do that here).  Since there is something here, there may be value in continuing it where multiple people can contribute.
 ::::If you want the article and talk page and all deleted, I would prefer not.  As an alternative to deletion - Is there some way to mark this article as a draft/needing significant revision?  (Most of my wiki experience is on wikipedia.  I am still trying to pick up the policies/systems/etc. here.)  [[User:Drakeula|Drakeula]] ([[User talk:Drakeula|talk]]) 02:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
+:::::Sorry, I should've been more descriptive. The way I see it, an article trying to outline why AI is bad or anti-consumer is like trying to say how social media is anti-consumer, or the internet is anti-consumer, etc. They're all simply too broad to write about. And, in reality, they're just tools. Social media can be anti-consumer in many ways, but it can be pro-consumer as well. Same with AI.
+:::::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)
 ==Appeal posted re proposed deletion==