Talk:Paul Christiano (researcher)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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 Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Thriley (talk) and Enervation (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 14:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Paul Christiano (researcher); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • I will review. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • First article I have reviewed where GPT-4 is credited. Nominated one day late (from the date it was moved into mainspace and 5x expansion began), but we are allowed to make exceptions per DYK rules (especially if it's just a matter of of 1–2 days). Long enough (1713 characters). Earwig says copyvio unlikely (highest match has 17.4% similarity). Has inline citations; would be nice if there were more independent secondary sources on the subject, but in light of the fact that he's a widely cited authority, it satisfies WP:ACADEMIC. QPQ is done. This leaves the hook, which I'm not 100% comfortable approving, mainly because the definition of "AI alignment" itself has no citation within the article; it's just asserted in the lead section. Could this be addressed somehow? (Come on, GPT!) Cielquiparle (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haha yeah GPT-4 was a real time saver – it's great for synthesizing information from different sources. I've added a citation for the definition of AI alignment, which comes from the Fortune article. Enervation (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Approve. Personally I think the hook has one blue link too many (i.e. maybe "artificial intelligence" doesn't need its own link and you could link more words to AI alignment because only linking "align" is not very compelling), but I leave that to the various promoters, proofreaders, and admins to fix. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Enervation: Could you please confirm whether you've actually checked the content generated by GPT-4 for accuracy? Cielquiparle (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have. Enervation (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Notability[edit]

This guy's notability seems extremely shaky. This is mostly a WP:REFBOMB of primary sources. The Fortune piece does actually about Christiano a lot, so that's one. The Vox piece is from their EA vertical, and Piper is talking up her friend here. I just removed one ref that didn't mention Christiano at all.

What are the three most convincing RS sources that Christiano passes WP:NBIO, WP:NSCIENTIST or any other Wikipedia notability criterion? - David Gerard (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? - David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PROD placed due to lack of evidence and lack of any response - David Gerard (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just responded to your AfD here but as part of the DYK nomination above, User:Cielquiparle and I agreed that the subject satisfies WP:ACADEMIC due to notable research impact. Enervation (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Publications section[edit]

@Enervation You might consider splitting out all the articles co-authored by Christiano into a standalone "Publications" section, and try to avoid citing those works directly as much as possible. (But you can cite the works that cite and discuss them.) Cielquiparle (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather, don't just include a list of publications - WP:NOTRESUME, we don't do that generally - David Gerard (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant just the notable ones. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]