Talk:Mira Murati

The article is full of contradictions

The "Early life" section says she's born in 1986 and attended the university of Tirana and MIT, studying computer science. The box and the "Education" section say that she was born in 1988 and attended Dartmouth to study mechanical engineering. PT Mann (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Issues are fixed now.--FeralOink (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Mira Murati did not go to UWC

I think there's been a mixup between Murati and Ermira Murati (https://www.davisuwcscholars.org/scholars/2011/m/node/2059). Ermira went to UWC Pearson and graduated from Colby College in 2011. Mira Murati graduated from Dartmouth in 2012. 172.58.89.211 (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly possible there's confusion - public bios that don't seem cribbed from Wikipedia are sparse - but she is listed as Ermira in various formal/official contexts that I imagine she would have directly edited or approved:

https://www.amacad.org/person/ermira-murati

https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/151/2/156/110626/Language-amp-Coding-Creativity

https://schedule.sxsw.com/2019/speakers/2008932

(in all of those cases it's unambiguously the subject of the article, with explicit mention of OpenAI).

On Linkedin, she is also a member of a "United World Colleges (Alumni)" group, which indicates at least some connection to UWCs.

Furthermore, it is possible to get a Dual degree from Colby and Dartmouth: https://www.colby.edu/academics/departments-and-programs/engineering-dual-degree-programs/ Dotx3 (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I checked carefully. She *did* attend UWC (a two year, pre-college program). Dotx3 is correct.--FeralOink (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

For further clarity: "Mira" seems to be simply a diminutive of "Ermira". Same person. (Also, in addition to being an alumna of UWC's IB program, it appears that her American university studies were indeed funded by a UWC Davis grant – no small feat, either. We could probably add this back to the article.) Curious to see what she does next. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The Dartmouth website states that Murati "attended Colby College as a Davis UWC Scholar and simultaneously earned her AB from Colby and a BE from Dartmouth as a dual-degree student at Thayer School of Engineering." Can we now park this matter and accept that she attended these institutions, earned the relevant degrees, etc.? (The same source also mentions that she received an honorary Doctor of Science in June 2024.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit war

Looks like there's an edit war about her heritage. People continue adding the claim that she's "Indian Albanian" with no source and it rightly gets removed every time. Surely this page should be protected? 81.2.103.240 (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Age of subject

We have one source that says she was born in 1986 (Global Woman Magazine), another that says 1988 (Forbes India), and our infobox says 1980. Which is correct? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I request the Arabic version of the article about Mira Murati be merged with this article. As of now, when searching for the Arabic language article, it doesn't appear, even though it exists. Thanks. FlantasyFlan (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

OpenAI section is not encyclopedic

The OpenAI section of this article, in particular the first paragraph thereof, reads like a newspaper puff piece, or a conference speaker section. The language used is not encyclopedic, referring to Ms. Murati being "instrumental" in the absence of supported citations, or, the most egregious example: "Her work includes pushing the boundaries of machine learning while advocating for the responsible and ethical use of AI technologies." Khavakoz (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Khavakoz, how would you like to improve the syntax? As written, there's perhaps a bit of puffery, to be sure, though most of the sources tend to treat her in a similarly idolatrous manner. One way or another, the NPOV tag placed at the start of July ought to be addressed or removed. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Please see Template:POV (This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
  

This tag has now been commented out. Please review template documentation before reinserting. Thank you. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Khavakoz, I've gone ahead and removed the POV template and the Citation needed tags (though I added Template:Expand section, a Better source tag, and some commentary which I hope addresses your concerns). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Controversial comment

Another user removed the following edit that I had added: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Mira_Murati&diff=1265382665&oldid=1265382556 I fail to see the relevance of his objection to the edit being added. She said the words that AI would replace some creative jobs and that they maybe shouldn't have existed in the first place. Which jobs she's referring to are irrelevant. The quote was widely published by the media, and this is one of the most controversial subjects in the world today. It is therefore worthy of being included. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 09:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for adding your comment here on the Talk page rather than edit warring in the article itself. Re: inclusion of the quote, it has been slightly shortened and moved to the end of the first paragraph of the relevant section. As the reference source doesn't actually speak about controversy per se, it seems undue to dedicate a section to "Controversy" (regardless of any of our personal points of view about AI or the quotation itself – although I do share some of your apparent concern about the matter). If you have another source that specifically addresses a controversy that Murati has provoked or been a party to, then it might justify expanding the point. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's a video of the full interview timestamped to the relevant quote: https://www.youtube.com/Ru76kAEmVfU?si=UvJC5X8qXppj17rh&t=1765. I strongly disagree that it is undue to include this in a dedicated Controversy section. If this cannot be included in a dedicated Controversy section, I wonder what can? Her remark was widely published in the media because of its highly controversial nature. This is one of the most controversial issues in the world today.

All of these AI execs use guarded language. What she said was basically a Freudian slip which revealed the true way that these psychopathic AI execs view other people's jobs and livelihoods that they want to eliminate.77.98.111.156 (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Whether other editors agree with your point of view or not is of less concern than having good sources to back-up the "controversy" claim (let alone the creation of a stand-alone section dedicated to Murati's statement causing said controversy). The Will Elliott opinion piece from The Dartmouth in "Refideas" above gets us closer, however, as it is only one source (and an Op-ed), it's not ideal as a reliable source. We probably should gather more, better sources that fully support the claim. The main OpenAI article may also be a better place for this topic. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

What she said was obviously controversial. AI replacing people's jobs is one of the most controversial subjects in the world today. Period. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Did you Google for her name and the quote? https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mira+murati+some+creative+jobs+will+go 77.98.111.156 (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Just looked at the first 8 pages of results for that Google search and they're nearly all links to articles about what she said. This is obviously a controversy. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, I personally do not disagree with you. See WP:SOAP (especially WP:NOTOPINION) for a summary of why you may get pushback making claims that are not fully supported by factual, reliable sources. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

How can AI replacing people's jobs not be a controversy? It's debated endlessly online. It affects everybody in the world who works.

The Google search results show that what she said was very widely reported by the media. I don't know what more you want me to say. It's not me being on my soapbox stating that what she said created a controversy. It's just a fact that she did that. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Based on your comments and recent edits, it is quite obvious that you do not have a neutral point of view, but rather seemingly unjustifiable resentment towards people working in the AI field.

Regarding your edit: What Mira said was vague, and it's not even clear what jobs or whose jobs she was talking about. Whatever she was saying, you cannot claim something as controversial just because you think so. And media and news are not a neutral source that biographical pages should be based upon, they publish provocative and cherry-picked comments all the time, because that's their business.

Regarding AI's taking people jobs: Every major invention affects society and people's lives, it is a global transition, for example, the industrial revolution played such an important role in history (read the article).

AI is a tool, it's purpose is to make our lives easier and do work for us. We control it, it cannot do anything by itself.

Let's ask the hard questions, if AI is going to replace some "creative" jobs, then is that job really creative? Our definition of a "creative" job is not entirely clear, AI is making us realize more about that. It's making us question what it means to be human. Maybe it gives you an uneasy feeling, but we have to face the questions.

One thing for sure, AI is limited at what it can do, it doesn't have and will not have emotions, and a lot of other things that make us human. And I don't think that a software algorithm can ever truly compete with a real artist. I will say that AI will raise competition, and make meaningful art more precious, rather than replace jobs.

It's better not to consume and spread conspiracies, just focus on meaningful things and forget about AI taking over your job.

Let's not go into further topics because WP:NOTFORUM. Illegally (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

My opinion of people working in AI is irrelevant.

Regarding my edit: She was talking about creative jobs being replaced. Did you watch the video I gave a link to?

"you cannot claim something as controversial just because you think so." No sane person would deny that AI taking everybody's jobs is a controversial subject, so please don't embarrass yourself by claiming that it isn't.

"And media and news are not a neutral source"

Are you claiming that there are zero references to sources in the media on Wikipedia? If not then clearly media/news articles are a legitimate source to use.

"Regarding AI's taking people jobs ... Let's ask the hard questions, if AI is going to replace some "creative" jobs, then is that job really creative?"

So you claim that I'm not allowed to "claim something ... just because you think so" but you obviously think you can?

How hypocritical can you get?

You're just being argumentative for the sake of it. This is blatantly controversial. You'd need to redefine the meaning of the word to suggest otherwise. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Btw is English your first language? It sounds like it's not, because you literally don't seem to understand the meanings of words such as "controversy" or "controversial". Sorry but I don't see why I should have to justify myself to someone who doesn't even understand the meanings of words that we're discussing here. And you obviously don't. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: This conversation should probably take place someplace else. It seems more relevant to the OpenAI article or perhaps the main AI article, and less so to this article (which is about Mira Murati). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Based upon the reference, I removed the section. --Hipal (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Why not pick a better reference out of the pages and pages of Google search results about it? https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mira+murati+some+creative+jobs+will+go

And I thought people were supposed to discuss changes in here before adding/removing? Or does that not apply to the Wikipedia Elite and the AI Utopians? 77.98.111.156 (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to change the reference and add it back in. Which you should've done, but chose not to. Wonder why? 77.98.111.156 (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BLP concerning the article content. See WP:TALK concerning your comments here.

Looking at the new reference, I think WP:OR still applies. I'll add WP:POV at this point.

Please do not restore the content again, regardless of the references. Instead propose new references or content here. --Hipal (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:LOL is all I have to say to that. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but claiming it's original research is moronic. As is POV.

What planet are you on? 77.98.111.156 (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Either suggest an alternative reference or I'll add it back in as it is.

Claims about OR and POV are nonsensical. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Whose original research is it supposed to be? Mine? Did I fabricate the 100+ articles you can find about it on a Google search? Did I hack into all of those media companies and insert articles onto their servers? Did I fake the YouTube video? 77.98.111.156 (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I propose one of the other articles on this Google search https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mira+murati+some+creative+jobs+will+go

You choose, cos then you can't really object to it. Although I wouldn't put it past you. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Please sir, does this source have your approval? https://www.forbes.com/sites/joemckendrick/2024/06/23/generative-ai-as-a-killer-of-creative-jobs-hold-that-thought/

Thank you sir. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Forbes is green on here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Is that ok, sir? 77.98.111.156 (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I do apologise if I've offended you by only referring to you as sir.

Please lord and saviour, would it be ok if i change the source and add it back in please, lord almighty? 77.98.111.156 (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I've started an ANI discussion about the ip.

The proposed ref should not be used per WP:FORBESCON. --Hipal (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there no room for flexibility of the rules on this? I would argue that the combination of factors point to the fact that it should be included:

1. AI replacing jobs is one of the most controversial subjects in the world today

2. the high number of media articles that were written about her comment (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mira+murati+some+creative+jobs+will+go) points to it being a controversy

3. There are articles that specifically call it a controversy, but WP:FORBESCON is not considered reliable

4. There are articles from reliable sources but they don't specifically mention it being a controversy.

Personally I think the overall combination of those 4 things suggest that it should be included. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH and WP:1Q, both of which may be of use to you. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough re WP:SYNTH. Regarding WP:1Q, it would make the article more informative, so it definitely meets that requirement imo. The page reads like an advert at the moment. Same with other AI execs' pages. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you really still discussing that?

Honestly, this IP is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE.

There's no point to continue this discussion any further, it's a waste of time for everyone. Illegally (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)