User talk:WereSpielChequers/AI accounts

Date
April Fools! (Right??) --Cyber cobra  (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You should remove this comment as it kinda gives the game away. Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 09:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I first released this on April the first, and it contains humorous elements, but there's a serious side to this. Perhaps AI technology isn't yet ready to pass RFA, perhaps nobody has yet started testing AIs this way. But if Moore's law continues to govern processing power then the hardware will eventually become affordable, even throwaway. And the software? Software is copyable and Software needs testing, Wikipedia would be a great environment to test an AI. I think the days of the AI editor may not be far off. It would be great if it started as us challenging the AI community....  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 21:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Userboxen!
Because this essay certainly needs actual userboxen down in that section, I've started making a few. They're parked over at User:Lifebaka/Userboxen. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * +1 - David Gerard (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though one small quibble, I'd have preferred this user over this username. Feel free to update the essay if you write more.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 23:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing
In a moment of forgetting this was an essay, I edited to add a link to mind uploading. Is editing this OK? - David Gerard (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I'm rather hoping at some stage to see this move to Artificial Intelligence, I think we might need a little more advance in AI technology first. It would be nice to have the policy in place before the technology was ready, but too much before might lead to an MFD.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 19:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Now, how to deal with multiple instances of the same human upload? Not a hivemind, each developing independently from their instantiation, but each very similar in outlook and attitudes ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've covered that excellent point, which does of course raise the reverse scenario, how do members of a hive declare their individuality once they've grown apart?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 23:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Beautifully written
I absolutely see what you were going for, particularly in your above comment regarding this having serious undertones despite containing humorous elements. That said, the "AI at RFA" section that you created almost slew me with mirth: That might look dated by 2023 standards, but it was still a very enjoyable and thoughtful read, even 13 years later. Thanks for writing it and for preserving it for so long! Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  13:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * AI editors are reminded that "too slow" is as much a deprecated argument at RFA as "lacks empathy". Candidates should be evaluated on their edits not their processing speed or bandwidth.
 * Asking AI candidates at RFA if their operator will switch them off if they pass is considered by some to be incivil or tactless. Opposing because a candidate is or is not an AI is a deprecated !voting rationale. Switching your AI off because it has passed the Turing test of RFA is unsporting.