Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence controversies - article

The article Artificial intelligence controversies is woefully inadequate. It includes just seven controversies - surely that does not accurately represent all AI controversies??? None are more recent than February 2024 - the vast majority of controversy surrounding AI that I have seen is well past that! It may be too broad to even exist as a singular article. remainsuncertain (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:38, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

English variety discussed at Talk:AI bubble

Your input at the following link is welcome: Talk:AI bubble#Which English variety? George Ho (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Proposed major rewrite of Multilayer perceptron

I've prepared a comprehensive rewrite of Multilayer perceptron (currently Start-class, Top-importance) in my sandbox. The revision restructures the article with new sections on architecture, training, applications, and limitations, adds a flowchart diagram, and expands sourcing. Details and discussion at Talk:Multilayer perceptron#Proposing comprehensive rewrite from sandbox. Feedback welcome. Alexis0Olson (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

New page on Nate Soares

As part of new page patrol I would appreciate some input from experts in AI. There is a new page Nate Soares created to replace a redirect by @ChristianKl, who at the same time added him to the template {{Existential risk from artificial intelligence}}. ChristianKl is an experienced editor on Wikidata, but has not contributed much on Wikipedia, and our rules are different. Based upon his Google Scholar profile he has an h-factor of 15 and 1K cites; that is much too low for academic notability. I do not see much in the article that is WP:SIGCOV that satisfies WP:42 for a pass of WP:GNG. I know little about people in AI, maybe he is very famous and the page just needs improving. Or not, and it should go to AfD to restore the redirect or just revert back to the redirect. Input please, I will also tag the page. (Tags can always be removed later.) Ldm1954 (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 Not an AI expert, but his book If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies was a major bestseller and was reviewed extensively. There's WP:SIGCOV in Politico and the White Valley Herald. Others may disagree, but I think there's a bare pass of notability here, although not under NACADEMIC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 While I do agree that his academic work alone doesn't make him notable, I think as @Dclemens1971 is saying, coauthoring If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies does make him notable. He's notable under WP:AUTHOR point 3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)".

The book having enough notability to have it's own Wikipedia page, seems to me like Wikipedia considers it to be a significant work. With reviews in Wired, The Guardian, New York Times, Vox, NPR, ABC, CNN, BBC and others it clearly fulfills the criteria of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

OK. Can either of you add some of the reviews and tweak the page so NAUTHOR is clearer? Then remove my "Expert Needed" tag. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 I added some information about the reception of the book to make NAUTHOR clearer. Do you feel like it's now clear enough to remove the "Expert Needed" tag or do you believe there should be more information added? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I just changed the first line and short description so "Author" appears, added a note on the talk page and removed the tag. Thanks for your help with this. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Dead Internet Theory has an RfC

Dead Internet Theory has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• RFC has been closed. Blueboar (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)