Talk:Effective accelerationism

DYK
I think this article could be good WP:DYK material and I would like to give it a shot and nominate the article. As I am not the creator or main contributer to this article, I would of course refrain from doing so if you, and, are opposed to a nomination. As the timeframe for a WP:DYK nomination is short, I will nominate it if no opposition is voiced here in the next 24 hours. Best, WatkynBassett (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Go for it, @WatkynBassett! What do you find is DYK about it? I still can’t tell, though I had another article about the clown Julia Masli highlighted in DYK quite unexpectedly, and gave that article a surge in traffic! Jenny8lee (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the subject matter is DYK-worthy, and the potential surge in traffic could introduce a new audience to an emerging movement they may be unaware of. I'm on board. Edelsmann (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Perfect, and . Yesterday I went ahead and nominated it at Template:Did you know nominations/Effective accelerationism. Best, WatkynBassett (talk) 06:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: Martin Shkreli listed as a 'high-profile Silicon Valley figure'
AFAIK he's not a notable or high profile silicon valley figure. the inclusion of his name could be seen as form of self promotion. I suggest removal due to WP:NOTYOU, WP:NOTABILITY Johnfancy (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Upon reflection, I agree. I've gone ahead and replaced him with Vitalik Buterin. Edelsmann (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Question

 * Sam Altman, Yann LeCun, Andrew Ng and Vitalik Buterin are seen as further supporters, as they have argued for less restrictive AI regulation.

Assuming this is true, I found it a little bit confusing, as I recall reading that Altman was arguing for more AI regulation just a few months ago or so. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with this criticism. I struck everyone except Yann LeCun and Andrew Ng because they are both explicitly named in the Economist article. We need a reliable source here for any further addition. WatkynBassett (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Framing

 * Originally considered a fringe movement, effective accelerationism gained mainstream visibility in 2023.

I think you are using the term "fringe movement" quite differently than the rest of us. As an example, the idea of "effective accelerationism" (and those who promote it) basically ignores all the points raised in the article regulation of artificial intelligence and related concerns. As far as my reading of the topic goes outside of insular, insider SV sources, it is *still* very much considered on the fringe. Further, your source does not show it is accepted by the mainstream, just that it received wider visibility. For the reader, this muddies the water, as the way you use fringe here is quite different than the notion that it is a fringe theory, which it very much is. Something needs to be done here to fix this ambiguity, and I'm not convinced confining and restricting the criticism to reception is the best solution. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: I've added a disputed tag. The content says it is no longer a fringe movement because it has gained increasing visibility, but the source itself says the idea is still fringe.  This is unintentionally confusing readers.  Please fix it. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

FYI
I've filed a report at Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I answered there! WatkynBassett (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources needed, etc.
Having been alerted to this article by the WP:FTN thread, I am very concerned that serious sources are lacking. Much of the WP:ASSERTed prose in the article is arguable on the face of it, and there are a lot of claims about a "movement" or a generalized claim as to what e/acc adherents believe that is not backed up in the sources provided. Our job here is to describe in the most clear and inarguable terms what is going on. As far as I can tell, this is an internet fad and many of the sources in the article describe it as such (if, perhaps, not in so many words). And yet, this perspective and framing is totally absent in favor of a claimed quasi-academic apprehension that looks to me, at least, to be the hoped-for "take me serious" vibe that some of the acolytes of this stuff are trying to argue for. In any case, what is sorely needed are serious, independent sources if the goal is to describe the "movement" as a "movement". I am not sure these are forthcoming. Social sciences are likely at some point to study this thing, but until serious investigations occur, we are stuck with media discourse that is of middling to poor quality and our article needs to be recast mostly as a distillation of notable opinions rather than a pretend discourse on a serious academic topic.

jps (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Et cetera et cetera
This article was linked to WP:FTN. I made a few comments there, which I think bear some repeating here. Basically:

That said, this article is not stunningly great. There are a couple things that are rather bold and need citations. For example: "Central to effective accelerationism is the belief that propelling technological progress at any cost is the only ethically justifiable course of action"... I don't think Yann LeCun believes that lol. Like, he doesn't really say that, and he doesn't really agree when other people say it, that I have seen. But he is "seen as" a "further supporter". Well, some argue that this is a ridiculous thing to vaguely claim about a WP:BLP subject.

Overall, the article could certainly benefit from a lot of rewriting and some closer attention to sourcing, as well as some closer attention to what actually makes sense (arbitrary sentences can be assembled from reliable sources to say just about anything, writing an article requires having at least some idea in your head about what is true and what is false, and writing a good one requires this idea to be somewhat accurate).

On the subject of "fringe": it should be noted that the colloquial definition ("weird") is quite different from the Wikipedian definition ("pseudoscientific or false claims"). But it has to be said: the whole topic of artificial intelligence is both. A program that can run on a normal desktop computer answer questions and solve complex problems in natural language is a bizarre artifact that I don't think there is a "normal" way of philosophically approaching. Most people tend to make bizarre overly-confident (and sometimes objectively false) statements about artificial intelligence on a regular basis. If saying goofy untrue stuff about AI made you fringe, more or less every pundit would be in the stocks for saying many provably false things over the course of the last couple years. But cringe is not fringe. jp×g🗯️ 01:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to Include Information on Effective Accelerationism
Hello fellow editors,

I've attempted to add a section to the article on Accelerationism titled "Effective Accelerationism in the World," but my edits have been reverted several times. I believe this addition is pertinent and well-sourced, and I'd like to discuss its inclusion here.

The proposed content is as follows:

I understand that tweets are generally not considered the most reliable sources. However, in this case, they are direct statements from Beff Jezos, a prominent figure associated with this movement. These tweets significantly contribute to the understanding and verification of the movement's reach and influence, particularly in Europe.

I'd appreciate any feedback or suggestions on how to improve this section to meet Wikipedia's standards. If there are concerns about the reliability of the sources, I'm open to suggestions for alternative ways to verify this information.

Thank you for considering this addition.

[Psychotorp52] Psychotorp52 (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Editor trying to shoehorn a personal essay by Wikipedia user Molly White into the article, in violation of WP:SELFPUBLISH
Per WP:SELFPUBLISH / WP:BLOGS:

"Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, the material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums, and electoral manifestos:
 * The University of California, Berkeley, library states: 'Most pages found in general search engines for the web are self-published or published by businesses small and large with motives to get you to buy something or believe a point of view. Even within university and library web sites, there can be many pages that the institution does not try to oversee.'
 * Princeton University offers this understanding in its publication, Academic Integrity at Princeton (2011): 'Unlike most books and journal articles, which undergo strict editorial review before publication, much of the information on the Web is self-published. To be sure, there are many websites in which you can have confidence: mainstream newspapers, refereed electronic journals, and university, library, and government collections of data. But for vast amounts of Web-based information, no impartial reviewers have evaluated the accuracy or fairness of such material before it's made instantly available across the globe.'
 * The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th Edition states, 'Any site that does not have a specific publisher or sponsoring body should be treated as unpublished or self-published work.' Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

Why do you keep trying to shoehorn a personal essay by Wikipedia user Molly White, a.k.a. "GorillaWarfare", into this article, in violation of Wikipedia's policies?

Do you have any relation or connection to Molly White? If so, you should declare a WP:CONFLICT immediately. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC) 50.221.225.231 (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

E/acc is a plagiarism of Syntropism and Extropianism
Revoque & Edit the past all you want, doesn't changes the truth. Now ofc my source is self-published, I'm the inventor of your whole damn movement so I need to paraphrase or cite no one but myself that's how it is. The proofs are there all over the Internet & Reddit Archives for anyone who's willing to read, you sycophants & plagiarists. Syntrop8 (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * dude is literally citing his own substack as a source in the refs but when i cite my substack/medium proving the precedence of my writing it's self publishing lmao...You guys are followers/fans you literally weren't there at the begining of this so you're basically ignorants reciting/promoting the dominant rewritten version of the story out of pure fanaticism and intellectual laziness without carrying out the slightest investigation and furthermore trying to erase the evidence. Syntrop8 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can't cover anything that people post on the web if there is insufficient evidence of notability. It doesn't aim to make investigative journalism, but rather to present an overview of the commonly accepted knowledge on the topic. And no, I'm not an e/acc. Alenoach (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)