Talk:Artificial intelligence rhetoric

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Kevin Roose wrote a viral article about artificial intelligence rhetoric after an AI bot attempted to convince him to leave his wife?

• Sources:

• Pratschke, B. Mairéad (2023). Generative AI and Education: Digital Pedagogies, Teaching Innovation and Learning Design. Springer. pp. 1, 41-42, 56. ISBN 9783031679919. OCLC 1453752201 Quote: "When ChatGPT-3.5 was launched in November 2022, it stunned the world of education...It is social, chatty, funny, and helpful but also sometimes unpredictable, lazy, rude, manipulative, and prone to bad behaviour, which ranged from attempting to break down a journalist's marriage (Roose, 2023; Yerushalmy, 2023)...New York Times tech columnist Kevin Roose also had an exchange with Bing’s Sydney (the former code name for what is now Microsoft Copilot), which left him “deeply disturbed” (Roose, 2023a, 2023b). Roose recounted the conversation in an episode of the Hard Fork podcast he co-hosts, which ended with the bot telling him he loved it and trying to convince him to leave his wife. A year later, Roose wrote a follow-up piece, in which he said that—partly thanks to issues like these—chatbots had been overly tamed by their big tech owners and now lacked the creativity that was necessary to tackle big problems, which he considered a loss (Roose, 2024)".
• Davis, Wes (August 31, 2024). "AI search 'shouldn't be this easy to manipulate'". The Verge. Retrieved December 11, 2024. Quote: "Kevin Roose, whose New York Times story about horny Bing chats went viral last year, writes that chatbots are at times very negative about him since, having seemingly picked up on criticism of his piece."

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Stanley Washburn

Created by Jpalmer770 (talk) and Skvader (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 52 past nominations.

paul2520 💬 15:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC).

• This isn't a review as the subject is outside my expertise, but I have concerns that the lead may be a bit too short and may not adequately cover the article. Sure it's not a GA so it doesn't really need to, but it still feels incomplete. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• New enough (Nov 11), long enough (6100 B), no copyvio. However, I see some issues with sourcing. The entire "Media coverage" section uses sources only to make claims about the sources themselves, without any secondary sources. This entire section should be removed. This means that the hook fact is not acceptable; it mentions a "viral article" but the article itself cannot be used to back up this claim. The rest of the article is mostly fine, except that the "academics who study everything from literature to social sciences to music..." statement must be sourced.
  @Paul2520:, @Jpalmer770:, @Skvader: Please address the above concerns and suggest a new hook. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: There's a ton of secondary sources about this. It's how I originally found out about the Roose article. The hook and the media section should be very easy to fix. I honestly see very few problems with this article. The fact that the nominator chose to go with the primary sources when so many secondaries are available should be an easy fix. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at the page history, the unsourced material referring to "academics who study everything" appears to have been added by the creator in reference to Lim & Chase 2023 which is cited earlier in the paragraph. I haven't looked at the source just yet, but it seems to echo it. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Thanks for pointing this out; you're right that the issues with the page will be easy to fix. The proposed hook is acceptable as long as the article has a citation for it. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Changes have been made. Approved. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)