Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Existential risks of artificial intelligence


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Delete. This is, at the heart of it, unsalvageable original research. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Existential risks of artificial intelligence

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Original essay Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 14:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Themfromspace (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - this article has twice been, and is currently, nominated for SPEEDY DELETION due to copyright. Ningauble (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC) (Self struck Ningauble (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC) )
 * No longer seems to have a copyright issue, source had a GNU license. 98.235.103.32 (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Even if this survives the dispute over copyright violation, it would need a complete rewrite to comply with WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:NPOV. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ningauble. -- Vary | Talk 18:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a well-established literature on this topic, so while the topic is speculative, the article is about that speculative literature 24 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Race2thefuture (talk • contribs)  — Race2thefuture (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: (1) Thank you for participating! (2) Notability of the subject is not in dispute. Compare other articles in Category:Futurology, some of which are quite good. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge what doesn't violate policy with Artificial intelligence or Strong AI (under "possible risks" or "criticisms"). 98.235.103.32 (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. As Ningauble noted above, the current version has some OR concerns. I do not think that this article in its current form can be salvaged to be encyclopedic. —C.Fred (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Unsalvagable essay. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this original essay, as per Ningauble and C.Fred. Cliff smith  talk  17:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs some work but the topic has merit and numerous sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment other than WP:XX it is a good article « PuTTY Sch OOL 14:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs work, but a lot of good WP articles start like that. If it still looks like that in a few months, then maybe we can vote. MikeCapone (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a topic related to the technological singularity and an expansion of a section there. I have so linked it.  There is a considerable thicket of related articles.  This one indicates the Lifeboat Foundation people are taking the issue seriously (though they present no original research) and while it overlaps some other articles, it has a unique viewpoint.  Keith Henson (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. An essay, from which it is impossible with the references as provided to work out which sentences are original research and which are not. I would actually settle for deleting everything except the first paragraph, but I'm not that bold. Jll (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I know this topic.  I don't see sentences which are original research.  Keith Henson (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have done a bit of work on the article, but I still have my doubts. One problem is that many of the references don't really address the subject of the article. Pick a random sentence, such as Even without such high-level problems [as poorly specified requirements], any AGI will be prone to developing dangerous sub-goals unless prevented from doing so, and find a source for it. Perhaps I am being harsh, but this is the difficulty in rescuing the article - it is easier to start again than try to track down sources for all these assertions. Jll (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.