Hello, Alenoach, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Contributing to Wikipedia
  • Introduction to Wikipedia
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, , or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

Hi Alenoach. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some other concepts of time, what

do you now expect the passage to be about? 103.153.108.242 (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This has strong helping of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH, nether of which are acceptable

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Vulnerable world hypothesis and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alenoach! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've started a move discussion over at Talk:Artificial intelligence detection software as per your suggestion. Let me know if the suggested name is best, or any further comments on the move. Thank you! 😊 GnocchiFan (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive feedback, GnocchiFan. I responded on the article's Talk page. Alenoach (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Not enough independent, significant coverage showing this is notable enough for a Wikipedia article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Vulnerable world hypothesis and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanderwaalforces was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

If this is not properly sourced is definitely WP:OR even though I know if this concept personally.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Vulnerable world hypothesis and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you changed a few page numbers in artificial intelligence#Transparency. I think we may be working from different editions of Christian's book. I'm going to check the citation and make sure it's my edition, and then change the page numbers back. I don't plan on changing your rewrites. (Just letting you know in case you're watching the page). Cheers. ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CharlesTGillingham. I used the e-book version from 2020. In this version, p. 110 corresponds to the end of the part "SALIENCY: THE WHITES OF ITS EYES", and 88-91 correspond to all of "THE WRONG RULES" except the last page. Feel free to change the page numbers, as long as it's consistent. Or alternatively, you could also put the section names instead of the page numbers, which may be less ambiguous. Alenoach (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Philipnelson99. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Glossary of artificial intelligence—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice the added content at the beginning, sorry. Thanks for having fixed it quickly! I should have double-checked for any accidental copy-pasting before publishing the modification. You can check the rest of the contributions, they are serious, so I will add them back if it's ok to you. Alenoach (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What happened is probably a "Ctrl + F, Ctrl + V" attempt that someway ended up copying the content into the article instead of the search bar. Alenoach (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of programming languages for artificial intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Purely functional. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sentience Institute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Animal advocacy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit on Reinforcement learning from human feedback because it cited an unreliable source. Please see WP:FORBESCON for more info. Happy editing! GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 00:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I added back the content, but this time with a source from Analytics India Magazine and one from Ars Technica. Alenoach (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point about keeping the lead simple. The problem is the use of CEA's quote without making it clear that it's self-description by proponents. The way to solve it is to use the descriptions of third parties rather than linking to a boosterish website.Essence of nightshade (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Essence of nightshade,

I think the fact that it is a quote already suggests that it comes from proponents, which can be easily verified by checking the references. And given that, according to the 2nd reference, it is endorsed by 11 organizations, it seems ok to me to not mention the Centre for Effective Altruism to keep the first sentence easy to digest. I think the quote is a pretty clear description of what effective altruism overall advocates for, despite some failures like with FTX. Even if we supposed that their advocacy is counter-productive or not genuine, it wouldn't necessarily invalidate the fact that they are advocating for it. That's how I see it. But I will probably spend some time on the article this week to reduce the number of sources that come from effective altruists, potentially removing some content at the same time. Alenoach (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alenoach. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Vulnerable world hypothesis".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 00:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jan Leike, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that AI researcher Jan Leike believes "safety culture and processes have taken a backseat to shiny products" at OpenAI? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jan Leike. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jan Leike), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you need further explanation of why promotional links are being removed, please ask first. Arllaw (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that in removing some older spam I accidentally reverted some content to an earlier version. That was unintentional, and I appreciate that you corrected that error. Arllaw (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. If I restored some spam reference along with the rest, you can of course remove the reference or COI content, as long as it's a targeted edit. Alenoach (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alenoach, I have requested this draft article you wrote to be undeleted to have a look at it and continue with editing. I think the topic is of sufficient following and publicity to be worthy of an article. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also think this is notable, the draft has around 10 secondary sources that are primarily about the topic. Alenoach (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. Do you think the draft is ready? If so, do you want to resubmit it, or should I do it? Alenoach (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw this thread after pinging you about the Leopold A article. Just looking at the current draft, there's room for improvement. For instance, the implications section is written in Wikivoice, without attributions in the prose. There appears to be enough secondary sources for notability (though I didn't check the sources), but the article does not refer to any of the authors of these sources. Any pushback against the hypthothesis? It might be wise to revise before submitting it for review. Hope this is useful. ProfGray (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was indeed some pushback against it. If I remember correctly, some people interpreted it as a kind of advocacy in favor of preventive policing. In particular, there is at some point a thought experiment about "High-tech Panopticon", intended to show how extreme things may become if there is no better solution. Bostrom said that he should have made more explicit that he also thought it would be bad. I can probably amend the article to highlight this in the "Reception" section. I saw the DYK suggestion, I will think about it and answer probably today. Alenoach (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays Alenoach! Vulcan Wishes A Great 2025 For You! – VulcanSphere (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that you: "Reverted addition of the controversy: hard to be sure about what she really meant, as she was talking about "collaborative" tools"

What is there to fail to understand about her words here? https://x.com/tsarnick/status/1803920566761722166 She indisputably said those words. Why do you have a problem with words that AI executives say/write being attributed to them? These people made the decision to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to train their LLMs using RLHF so that they can replace as many human jobs as possible. Now you don't think their actions and comments should be commented on?

Have you never considered how countries outside the US will fair if AI replaces a large percentage of jobs? Or do you just not care because you've got enough money and the rest of the world can go swivel?

UBI wouldn't work in any country outside of the US. Unless you think all countries outside the US should live in poverty? Why are you doing the bidding of billionaires and monopolists?

96% of the world's population lives outside the US. Are they meant to starve at the altar of Sam Altman?

Dario Amodei (net worth $830m) doesn't feel that it "matters very much [to him]" if someone loses their job to AI. Why are you doing the bidding of these psychopathic AI execs?

Why do you think it's acceptable to stop me or anyone else from being able to work to earn money? How selfish can you people get?

Hey Einstein, who's going to buy all of the goods and services when everybody's unemployed? Will your robots buy them?

Feel free to enlighten me about how making everyone unemployed is going to make everything better? UBI is economically innumerate BS. See this: https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2017/number/2/article/the-basics-of-basic-income.html

"While the details of such calculations would vary from country to country, the essentials remain the same, and the conclusions inescapable. The provision of a universal basic income at a level which would provide a serious alternative to low-paid employment is impossibly expensive. Thus, a feasible basic income cannot fulfil the hopes of some of the idea’s promoters: it cannot guarantee households a standard of living acceptable in a modern society, it cannot compensate for the possible disappearance of existing low-skilled employment and it cannot eliminate “bullshit jobs”. Either the level of basic income is unacceptably low, or the cost of providing it is unacceptably high. And, whatever the appeal of the underlying philosophy, that is essentially the end of the matter."

Maybe you and all the other AI fanatics understand economics better than the author of that article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kay_(economist)

Ask the o3 model what it thinks. That's beyond genius level in every subject isn't it? Maybe it can create free money (without the hyperinflation) and we can all live happily ever after, right? That's the BS we're being sold - by billionaires who won't have to live on UBI, funnily enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.111.156 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning that Mira Murati said those words. But there is not that much context in the video to clarify what she really meant. She mentions "collaborative" tools and replacing "some" jobs. It's not really clear what kind of creative jobs she was talking about and whether she may have misspoken. Looks a bit too anecdotal to justify a standalone "Controversies" section on someone's biography. In general, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons leans against including such content, and the edit adding the "Controversy" section had already been reverted by other editors.

For the case of Dario Amodei, The content of the controversy section really lacks notability. And what he says is in the context of a post-AGI world where people are given at least enough to subsist. You may disagree with his premise, but the argument was about whether people's sense of accomplishment and competition can be fulfilled in such a situation, even though AI can do everything better.

In the case of Altman, he has said a few things about unemployment that may be worth synthesizing in a sentence or two, while trying to accurately summarize what he thinks based on his diverse declarations, and to also present in due proportion his views on other AI-related topics (because there are a lot of other AI topics on which he has talked). But it's usually better to avoid making a "Controversies" or "Criticism" section, as explained here, a more appropriate section title may for example be "Views on artificial intelligence". And if we add such a section, we should be careful to remain neutral and balanced.

I understand your concerns about AI taking your job, and I hope it clarifies my reasoning. Please note that my decision to remove the section was not based on personal opinions about economics but rather on Wikipedia's content policies. If you want to discuss it further, you can add a discussion on the talk page of the article, so that everyone can see your proposition and provide feedback. Alenoach (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re Mira Murati, she said what she said. Everything else is you trying to provide excuses for her.

Re Dario Amodei and "what he says is in the context of a post-AGI world where people are given at least enough to subsist". Please provide a citation to the future where we will all be given enough to "subsist" on. Also the definition of "subsist" is "maintain or support oneself, especially at a minimal level." Why would anyone from a developed country want to settle for merely subsisting? People WORK precisely so that we don't have to merely subsist.

And if an AI executive with a net worth of $830m doesn't think "it matters much" to eliminate people's ability to work in order to earn money, then that is blatantly controversial and worthy of criticism, and I don't see how you can justify not including it in a Controversy/Criticism section. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I understand your concerns about AI taking your job"

You obviously don't understand my concerns. If you did, you wouldn't incessantly propagandise for AI in the way that you do. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you work for an AI lobbying company btw? Or are you genuinely looking forward to subsisting on bread and water every day? 77.98.111.156 (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem showing my identity to an admin in private to prove that I have never worked for any of the companies or the people I have written about in Wikipedia, if that's the issue. Alenoach (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you are looking forward to becoming unemployed and living in poverty? 77.98.111.156 (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a video of the full interview, timestamped to the relevant quote: https://www.youtube.com/Ru76kAEmVfU?si=UvJC5X8qXppj17rh&t=1765

It was an unprompted Freudian slip. Which jobs she was referring to was irrelevant. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, if someone proposes a big change the government publishes a consultation to gather responses which (allegedly) inform the policies they create.

But here we have a group of private sector psychopaths unilaterally deciding to ELIMINATE ALL WORK FOR THE WHOLE OF THE WORLD yet people like you seem to think anyone who thinks there might be some slight drawbacks to such a hair-brained scheme, such as plunging the vast majority of the global population into poverty, should keep their mouths shut and just suck up the Altman BS, right? Get real. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually given any thought to what societies would look like when 90 - 99% of the population are living in poverty (AKA UBI) and people have no means to improve their lives because there would be no work available and all of the companies selling things would be owned by big conglomerates?

The only way to make extra money would be to become a criminal. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for being rude to you in this conversation. I thought I was applying common sense and other people were objecting to edits I was making just to be obstructive. I accept that I was wrong and that I should've read the links to the WP rules that people were posting. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]