Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial Stupidity: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:14, 1 April 2008

Artificial Stupidity

PROD removed by author without comment. This is an unsourced neologism and Wikipedia is not for first publication of something made up one day, even if the day is April 1st. JohnCD (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to computer senility (Red Dwarf)? --Merovingian (T, C) 09:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: the article has changed since nomination - it no longer claims Wikipedia as first use of the term, and has provided a source; but that is only a rather random discussion in some kind of blog; I don't think it sufficiently establishes use and notability of this neologism. JohnCD (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism. Unless article creator can provide better cites.. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On google I can find lots of uses for "artificial stupidity", but none uses the definition in the article, and they don't use it a noun like this salon.com article talking of how computers are too stupid to take over the world or an article on the Journal of Unlikely Science that talks about "stupid computers that were able to demonstrate behaviours such as ignorance, bigotry and even a penchant for golf fashion". More damning evidence is that it does not appear with this meaning on the c2.com wiki about programming [1], this almost certainly means that it's not widely used on programming at all --Enric Naval (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be nothing more than a play-on-words of Artificial Intelligence, not an actual subject in computer science. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep - I was going to vote delete, as I could only think of a few minor uses (The Economist in '92, articles relating to the Ecomonist's piece (SIGART '92) and Salon's piece). But a search on Google Scholar turns up 143 hits - that's enough to make a reasonable article. I should have searched first. - Bilby (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry - the more I look into this the more I think there is something to it. Surprising, really. :) Good articles by Loebnitz and others suggest that there's enough to this to make it viable. If it survives AfD, or I get time, I'd probably like to play with this one. - Bilby (talk)
  - Actually, all those papers are not talking about what the article talks about. The article is about a programming technique for discovering bugs by tweaking the intelligence to be stupid. That paper is measuring the stupidity of AI systems. Notice that you can change an article to improve it during to nomination so it gets saved, so you could just edit the article with these sources and the meanings they use, and save the article. Many articles get saved because they get improved during nomination (and because of people looking at them because of nomination and deciding to improve them). This article could do with a "other meanings on AI field" section. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 * '''<s>Weak</s> Keep''' - I was going to vote delete, as I could only think of a few minor uses (The Economist in '92, articles relating to the Ecomonist's piece (SIGART '92) and Salon's piece). But a search on [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Artificial+stupidity%22&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N Google Scholar] turns up 143 hits - that's enough to make a reasonable article. I should have searched first. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 14:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 **'''Comment''' Sorry - the more I look into this the more I think there is something to it. Surprising, really. :) Good articles by [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=70634 Loebnitz] and others suggest that there's enough to this to make it viable. If it survives AfD, or I get time, I'd probably like to play with this one. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]])
+***Actually, all those papers are not talking about what the article talks about. The article is about a programming technique for discovering bugs by tweaking the intelligence to be stupid. That paper is measuring the stupidity of AI systems. Notice that you can change an article to improve it during to nomination so it gets saved, so you could just edit the article with these sources and the meanings they use, and save the article. Many articles get saved because they get improved during nomination (and because of people looking at them because of nomination and deciding to improve them). This article could do with a "other meanings on AI field" section. --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 15:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)