2023 in AI

2023 in AI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn’t merit an article, no references. Perhaps merge with AI? Dylan | ✉ | ✓  21:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Dylan | ✉ | ✓  21:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If AI folks want to catalog this, do their own wiki. We don't need day-by-day notes about news involving AI (which happens to not mention this negative news about its use in law). Nate • (chatter) 23:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Page doesn't needed.Its looks like news sharing.--Monhiroe (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The page was created as a fork of the main 2023 page per relevant talk page consensus, given the large number of items relating to AI being posted on the page. Carter00000 (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One under 30-edit account, an IP, and one other account agreeing on the year's page≠consensus. Also we post news events, not promotional spam about AI, on year pages. Nate • (chatter) 20:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This subject is particularly affected by recentism and WP:CRYSTAL. The article indiscriminately pushes recent contributions to generative AI as being important, when in reality it is WP:TOOSOON to make conclusions. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. This article feels both pointless and promotional. Dawnbails (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are more than two dozen articles just like this (see Template:C21 year in topic) for many facets of 2023. Given how AI has played a very significant role in 2023, which basically every reliable source on the planet has mentioned, I say we keep it! TheAwesomeAtom (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I severely fail to understand the argument that this topic is promotional. Indeed, the items included in the article's current revision are disproportionately new model releases from megacorps; there is no mention of any open projects whatsoever! I cannot say it forcefully enough: it's bad. However, these are problems with the article, not the topic. If it is really that bad, then we can just BLAR it to 2023 and deal with it later. I don't think you are all thinking this through very thoroughly. jp×g 03:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rationale to delete this article is WP:TOOSOON. It cannot be said yet what contributions to AI in 2023 were important, aside from the obvious one (GPT-4). 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I didn't know we suddenly decided to waive WP:PROMO when it comes to AI, and I have yet to see one negative item about AI in this article to balance things out or even move the other side of the scale. In its current form, it's a PR WP:COATRACK. Nate • (chatter) 02:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Heavily affected by recency bias. Can be revived at a later date when we have context of how AI developments panned out/which were important. Right now there are too many marketers hyping the subject up

Carolina Heart (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Disappointed to see so much negativity here, and frankly ignorance, about what is an extremely important topic. Wjfox2005 (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I !voted delete but I agree with your sentiment. Unfortunately, all relevant Wikipedia policy like WP:CRYSTAL, WP:DELAY and WP:TOOSOON says to wait to confirm if such an article is needed (and to draftify it in the meantime). 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: by necessity, nearly everything cited on the page is WP:PRIMARY: as others have pointed out, it's too soon to write a properly analytical article which would understand the impact of these events, and so be more than WP:NOTNEWS. However, it would be good to see the article rewritten in a few years when that is no longer so. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus and because no one has considered the nominator's suggestion to Merge the article. There's also a mention of Redirecting it which might be a solution for those arguing that it is simply TOOSOON for this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Carolina Fox and UndercoverClassicist. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Redirect is pointless because this is not a search term. Merge is also pointless as this is a list of news and there is no content to merge. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]