User talk:Regulinecoast1/Artificial general intelligence

Ciyhanni's Peer Review:

Everything in the article is relevant to the article topic. There is nothing that distracted me. The article is neutral and there isn't any claims or frames that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. The ethical and societal viewpoints are underrepresented. One of the links do not open from the article. Each fact does support an appropriate and reliable refreence. The information comes from the links/the wikipedia article. The information isn't out of date.

C.robinrcbc (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Ciyhanni[reply]

Dylan's Peer Review

I think you did a really good job in providing an understanding of the history of artificial intelligence by giving examples of how it was used in different time periods. The additions don't seem to give a stance on any specific thing, but rather just give well cited information on the subject. As for the section on artificial general intelligence (AGI) , I think it was well written and cited and provided a basic understanding of AGI. One thing I would add however are new developments that are in the making since you brought up the subject of what AGI is currently lacking, such as communication ability.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan Moore741 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]