Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VITAL (machine learning software)


 * 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 no consensus. Also, the nominator has been blocked as a sock.  Sandstein  12:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

VITAL (machine learning software)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It was a PR stunt that got news coverage at the time. Delete per WP:ONEEVENT MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The nominator was blocked per Sockpuppet investigations/FreeatlastChitchat. Cunard (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The suck-puppet and the master did not vote in the AfD. Right?--Postconfused (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. Background Deep Knowledge Ventures, a Hong Kong-based venture capital fund, issued a press release on 13 May 2014 announcing that it had appointed VITAL, a machine learning software, to its board of directors. Commentators largely considered VITAL's appointment to be a publicity stunt. The critical reaction was typified by that of Alan Finkel, the Chief Scientist of Australia, who said in a 2019 speech, "At the time, most of us probably dismissed Vital as a PR exercise. I admit, I used her story three years ago to get a laugh in one of my speeches." Later in Finkel's speech, he said, "Given that it's five years since Vital first appeared, I thought I'd check to see what's happened. For starters, the company is still in business. Vital is still on the Board. ... Now I'm not here to prophesy the extinction of the human director...but I do want you to take Vital and her progeny as a challenge." VITAL is notable for being the centerpiece of a publicity stunt by Deep Knowledge Ventures (which was nominated for deletion here). The notability case for Deep Knowledge Ventures was difficult to establish since almost all of the sources were about VITAL. The notability case for VITAL is much easier to establish, which is why I created this article. I am presenting sources below showing that VITAL has received sustained substantial coverage from multiple journals and books. It received substantial critical analysis in a Chinese journal (2018) and a French journal (2015):The Chinese source discuss how VITAL raises a deeper question about "the encounter between corporate law and artificial intelligence".The French source discusses who will held legally liable if VITAL makes a mistake in supporting investing in a terrorist group (should VITAL's owner, designer, or data source providers be held liable?). Sources published in 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2019   </li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol> Sources published in 2014 <ol> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>

Sources published in 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2019 <ol> <li> The article notes: "早在 2014 年，人工智能对公司法的挑战已隐隐若现. 研究生物科技与再生医学的英国公司 Aging Analytics 于 2014 年 5 月宣布，启用一款名为 VITAL(Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences)的人工智能工具，并授权香港的风投公司 Deep Knowledge Ventures 将该人工智能用作 该公司的投资委员. 在被记者问及为何采用这一人工智能时，Deep Knowledge Venture 的高级合伙人卡明斯基(Kaminskiy)称，人会受情感左右，有主观情绪，会犯错误，但 VITAL 这样的机器只会用逻 辑思维，不可能因为一时意气出错. 人类投资者的直觉和机器的逻辑性相结合，会打造一支完美的 团队，将错误的风险降低到最小. 〔1〕VITAL 入场后，已经帮助公司批准了两项投资:一个是在抗衰老 医药领域开发计算机辅助方法的 Silico Medicine，另一个是使用选择个人化抗癌治疗方法的 Pathway Pharmaceuticals. Aging Analytics 公司声称，VITAL 在投资委员会和其他委员是平等的. 事实上， VITAL 在当时虽然冠以“投资委员”之名，但实际上并非对任何的投资都享有跟其他委员同等的表决 权. 而且，根据香港公司法的规定，VITAL 也无法获得“董事”地位. 因此，Aging Analytics 公司的其 他委员认为，将之视为投资委员会的“观察员(observer)”可能更为适当. VITAL 的出现，实质上引出一个更深层次的问题:公司法与人工智能的相遇将会擦出何种火花? VITAL 可能被视为公司的董事，也可能被视为公司董事决策的辅助(即观察员)，但不管是哪一种情 形，均会导致公司法语境的一连串追问:如果 VITAL 被视为董事，则传统公司法关于董事的相关规 则(比如董事义务规则)是否仍然适用?如果不能适用，应当如何重构?如若 VITAL 不被视为董事， 而仅仅是被视为董事决策的辅助手段，则这种辅助性工具是否也受到公司法的规约?如董事因听信 VITAL 所作出的决策导致公司利益受损，VITAL 本身是否应当承担责任?无生命无感情之 VITAL 又该承担何种责任，才能与其行为与身份相匹配?凡此种种，无疑均会对公司法造成挑战与冲击." From Google Translate: "As early as 2014, the challenge of artificial intelligence to corporate law was looming. Aging Analytics, a British company that researches biotechnology and regenerative medicine, announced in May 2014 that it had launched an artificial intelligence tool called VITAL (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) and authorized Hong Kong venture capital company Deep Knowledge Ventures to use Artificial intelligence is used as the company's investment committee. When asked by reporters why this artificial intelligence was adopted, Kaminskiy, a senior partner at Deep Knowledge Ventures, said that people will be influenced by emotions, have subjective emotions and make mistakes, but machines like VITAL will only be logically thinking, so it is impossible to make mistakes because of a moment of impatience. The combination of human investor intuition and the logic of the machine will create a perfect team and minimize the risk of error. 〔1〕 After VITAL entered the market, it has helped the company to approve two investments: one is Silico Medicine, which develops computer-aided methods in the field of anti-aging medicine, and the other is Pathway Pharmaceuticals, which chooses personalized anti-cancer treatment methods. Aging Analytics claims that VITAL is equal to the investment committee and other members. In fact, although VITAL was called the 'investment committee' at the time, it did not actually have the same voting rights as any other committee for any investment. Moreover, according to the provisions of the Hong Kong Company Law, VITAL cannot obtain the status of 'director'. Therefore, other members of Aging Analytics believe that it may be more appropriate to consider them as “observers” of the investment committee. The emergence of VITAL actually raises a deeper question: What kind of spark will the encounter between corporate law and artificial intelligence? VITAL may be regarded as a director of the company, or it may be regarded as an auxiliary to the decision-making of the company's director (that is, the observer ). But in either case, it will lead to a series of questions in the corporate law context: If VITAL is regarded as a director, will the relevant rules of the traditional company law on directors (such as the directors' obligations) still apply? If not applicable How should it be reconstructed? If VITAL is not regarded as a director, but only as an auxiliary means for directors ’decision-making, is this auxiliary tool also subject to the stipulations of the company law? If the interests of the company are damaged, should VITAL itself bear the responsibility? What kind of responsibility should VITAL bear without life and emotion to match its behavior and identity? All of these will undoubtedly cause challenges and impacts on the company law."</li> <li> The article notes: "epuis le 13 mai 2014, il est le sixième membre du conseil d’administration de la société hongkongaise Deep knowledge ventures, ou DKV. Il n’a pas besoin de porter cravate et costume de grand ponte. Il s’appelle Vital, d’un acronyme que les autres têtes d’œuf du conseil ont sans doute oublié mais qui en dit beaucoup sur le sens de sa présence au sommet de cette entreprise de capital-risque des secteurs de la lutte contre le cancer, la médecine régénérative et les traitements personnalisés : « Outil de validation pour les investissements dans la recherche scientifique » . Vital n’a pas le physique de l’emploi : c’est un algorithme. Plus aucune décision d’investissement, néanmoins, n’est aujourd’hui prise par DKV sans qu’il n’ait voix au chapitre. Car le robot, pour peu qu’on le nomme ainsi comme l’ont fait la plupart des journalistes ayant chanté sa finesse d’analyse autant que sa puissance de calcul, est un incorruptible. Sa promotion, son crédit au sein du pool de décideurs de Deep knowledge ventures, il les doit à sa neutralité. À la rigueur toute mathématique de ses avis sur les sociétés candidates à la manne financière. Mais cette absence de subjectivité n’est-elle pas un leurre ? Même autonome dans l’exercice quotidien de sa mission, une machine programmée par des humains peut-elle être considérée comme neutre ? Et infaillible ? Car Vital pourrait se tromper et soutenir un investissement nuisible. Et si cet algorithme réussissait un jour à convaincre les cinq autres membres de son conseil d’administration d’investir dans une startup se présentant de façon crédible comme spécialisée dans la lutte contre le vieillissement, mais dirigée en sous-main par une bande de djihadistes cherchant des fonds pour l’immortel Allah ? Vital pourrait-il être tenu pour responsable de l’erreur de casting ? Faudrait-il incriminer la société DKV, juridiquement propriétaire de ce logiciel ô combien supérieur ? Ou ses prestataires et leurs sources d’information ? Ou bien se retourner contre le concepteur de Vital, cette mécanique qu’on croyait pourtant si intelligente?" From Google Translate: "Since May 13, 2014, he is the sixth member of the board of directors of the Hong Kong company Deep Knowledge Ventures, or DKV. He does not need to wear a tie and a suit. His name is Vital, from an acronym that the other egg heads of the council have no doubt forgotten but which says a lot about the meaning of his presence at the top of this venture capital business in the fight against cancer, regenerative medicine and personalized treatments: 'Validation tool for investments in scientific research'. Vital doesn’t have the physique of a job: it’s an algorithm. No investment decision, however, is made today by DKV without it having a say. Because the robot, as far as it is called like most journalists who have sung its finesse of analysis as much as its computing power, is incorruptible. His promotion, his credit within the pool of decision makers of Deep knowledge ventures, he owes to his neutrality. Strictly mathematically speaking, his opinions on companies that are candidates for the financial windfall. But isn't this lack of subjectivity an illusion? Even autonomous in the daily exercise of its mission, can a machine programmed by humans be considered neutral? And foolproof? Because Vital could be wrong and support a harmful investment. And if this algorithm one day succeeded in convincing the other five members of its board of directors to invest in a startup presenting itself in a credible way as a specialist in the fight against aging, but led behind the scenes by a gang of jihadists seeking funds for the immortal Allah? Could Vital be held responsible for the casting error? Should we incriminate DKV, the legal owner of this much better software? Or its providers and their sources of information? Or turn against the designer of Vital, this mechanism that we thought was so intelligent?"</li> <li> The book notes: "Deep Knowledge Ventures On 13 May 2014, a press release from Deep Knowledge Ventures, a Hong Kong-based venture capital fund specializing in biotechnology, age-related disease drugs and regenerative medicine projects, announced that it ‘formally acknowledges VITAL, a crucial Artificial Intelligence instrument for investment decision-making, as an equal member of its Board of Directors’. VITAL was the product of Aging Analytics UK, a provider of health-sector market intelligence to pension funds, insurers and governments. Developed by ‘a team of programmers, several of which have theoretical physics backgrounds’, the system ‘uses machine learning to analyze financing trends in a database of life science companies and predict successful investments’. VITAL 1.0 was a ‘basic algorithm’, but the goal was ‘through iterative releases and updates ... to create a piece of software that is capable of making autonomous investment decisions’ (Fontaine 2014). Apparently, however, Deep Knowledge Ventures thought VITAL was already pretty good: it told reporters the program would ‘vote on whether to invest in a specific company or not’ (BBC 2014). All this sounded very futuristic. As commentators quickly pointed out, however, it was really ‘publicity hype’ (BBC 2014). This was not because decision-making algorithms are impossible, but, on the contrary, because their use, often in forms far more complex than VITAL, is commonplace in today’s capitalism. Such programs are, for example, central to the operations of the financial sector, whose high-speed multi-billion trades are entirely dependent on algorithms – and whose bad decisions brought the world economy to its knees in the great Wall Street crash of 2008. The press release was a stunt because the future to which it seemed to point exists now. ... The same-day news of the algorithmic boss-entity and the mine disaster was coincidence. Yet it condenses paradoxes and contradictions central to this book. For a start, it starkly highlights the coexistence within contemporary capitalism of extraordinary high-technologies and workers who live and die in brutal conditions often imagined to belong in some antediluvian past. This coexistence is also a connection. Mines and artificial intelligences seem to belong to different worlds, but they are strongly linked. Although only a small part of production at Soma went to power plants, similar coal mines around the planet provide – at appalling, biosphere-endangering environmental cost – the basic energy source on which all digital technologies depend: electricity."</li> <li> The article notes: "In May 2014 Deep Knowledge Ventures – a Hong Kong venture-capital firm specialising in regenerative medicine – broke new ground by appointing an algorithm called VITAL to its board. VITAL makes investment recommendations by analysing huge amounts of data on the financial situation, clinical trials and intellectual property of prospective companies. Like the other five board members, the algorithm gets to vote on whether the firm makes an investment in a specific company or not. Examining VITAL’s record so far, it seems that it has already picked up one managerial vice: nepotism. It has recommended investing in companies that grant algorithms more authority. With VITAL’s blessing, Deep Knowledge Ventures has recently invested in Silico Medicine, which develops computer-assisted methods for drug research, and in Pathway Pharmaceuticals, which employs a platform called OncoFinder to select and rate personalised cancer therapies."</li> <li> The book notes: Back in 2014, the media reported that Deep Knowledge Ventures, a Hong Kong-based venture capital firm, had appointed an algorithm named Vital (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) to its board of directors. According to these reports, the algorithm was given the right to "vote on whether the firm makes an investment in a specific company or not", just like the other—human—members of the board. Vital was appointed because of its ability to "automate due diligence and use historical datasets to uncover trends that are not immediately obvious to humans surveying top-line data". For instance, Vital helped to approve two investment decisions, namely those to fund Insilico Medicine, an enterprise which develops computer-assisted methods for drug discovery in aging research, and Pathway Pharmaceuticals, which selects and rates personalized cancer therapies on the basis of a platform technology. Despite this impressive track record, Vital admittedly was not yet artificially intelligent in the proper sense. In fact, the algorithm will soon have to retire, since a much more intelligent Vital 2.0 is due to be launched in the near future. Moreover, Vital was initially not granted an equal vote on all financial decisions made by the company. Legally speaking, it has not even acquired the status of corporate director under the corporate laws of Hong Kong. It is simply treated as "a member of [the] board with observer status" by its fellow (human) directors. Nevertheless, Vital has widely been acknowledged as the "world's first artificial intelligence company director".</li> <li> The article notes: "Hong Kong-based investment firm Deep Knowledge Ventures made headlines in 2014 by appointing a computer algorithm to its corporate board. The firm, which has about 100 million euros under management, wanted a way to enforce a data-driven approach to investing, rather than relying on human intuition and personal interactions with founders. Managing partner Dmitry Kaminskiy says the algorithm served mostly as a veto mechanism—if it spotted red flags, Deep Knowledge wouldn’t invest. In the five years since Deep Knowledge’s A.I. got its board seat, there hasn’t exactly been a stampede of companies following suit. In fact, Deep Knowledge itself shifted focus and no longer uses the algorithm. “Today, big strategy decisions are based on intuition”—that is to say, by humans—“because we have a data shortage,” says Brian Uzzi, a professor at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. Firms simply don’t make enough of these major decisions to train an algorithm effectively."</li> <li> The article notes: "The use of algorithms such as VITAL (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) to make decisions is also increasingly widespread. VITAL, a product of Deep Knowledge Ventures, surveys very large tranches of data to project the most profitable investments likely as a consequence of the patterns revealed in the reviewed data. A Hong Kong venture capital fund saw fit in 2014 to appoint VITAL to its Board of Directors to take advantage of its investment recommendations."</li> <li> The article notes: "DKV started as a traditional biotechnology fund, with a team of advisers and analysts using traditional methods for trend analysis and due diligence. But the biotech sector has a very high failure rate, with around 96% of drugs not successfully completing clinical trials. ... DKV then acquired a team of specialists in the analysis of big data -- large data sets that can be analyzed by computers to reveal patterns. The team created Vital, the first artificial intelligence system for biotech investment analysis, enabling the fund to identify more than 50 parameters that were critical for assessing risk factors. ... Vital showed that the probability of success was higher in the longevity subsector, which seeks to combat the effects of ageing, than in most other biotech subsectors. ... DKV is currently working on Vital 2.0, which will be launched in the second half of 2017. Kaminskiy said the new system will have a much higher IQ due to increases in the quality of data available and further diversification of data sources. Vital 2.0 will integrate data from scientific literature, grants, patent applications, clinical trials and even the biographies of individual team members of companies in which DKV is interested." The article includes quotes from Dmitry Kaminskiy, managing partner of Deep Knowledge Ventures.</li> </ol> Sources published in 2014 <ol> <li> The article notes: "The existing structure of Deep Knowledge Ventures is already shrouded a bit in mystery—the company is led by Russian Dmitry Kamenskiy, who cofounded the Center for Biogerontology and Regenerative Medicine (VITAL analyzes only companies involved in regenerative medicine)—but the rest of the board consists of “five anonymous partners, all high net worth individuals from Hong Kong, Russia, and the UK,” according to Highland. She says that the board will only put money into companies that VITAL’s algorithm suggests are a good bet, which isn’t too different from any other company using some proprietary analysis software or equation to make decisions. ... So far, VITAL has helped the VC firm invest in two companies, including Baltimore’s InSilico Medicine. Alex Zhavoronkov, InSilico’s CEO, told me that he does not “talk” to VITAL, but that in his dealings with Deep Knowledge Ventures, the company has acted as though the algorithm is a real human."</li> <li> The article notes: "A Hong Kong venture capital fund recently appointed a computer algorithm to its board of directors, claiming to be the first company of its kind to give a machine an 'equal vote' when it comes to investment decisions. The firm, Deep Knowledge Ventures (DKV), which invests in companies researching treatments for age-related diseases and regenerative medicine, uses the algorithm to analyze financing trends to make investment recommendations in the life sciences sector. 'We were attracted to a software tool that could in large part automate due diligence and use historical data-sets to uncover trends that are not immediately obvious to humans surveying topline data,' said DKV senior partner Dmitry Kaminskiy when the company announced the board 'appointment' in May."</li> <li></li> <li> The article notes: "A venture capital firm has appointed a computer algorithm to its board of directors. The program - called Vital - will vote on whether to invest in a specific company or not. The firm it will be working for - Deep Knowledge Ventures - focuses on drugs for age-related diseases. It said that Vital would make its recommendations by sifting through large amounts of data. The algorithm looks at a range of data when making decisions - including financial information, clinical trials for particular drugs, intellectual property owned by the firm and previous funding. According to Deep Knowledge Ventures, Vital has already approved two investment decisions."</li> <li></li> <li> The article notes: "Earlier this year, Deep Knowledge Ventures a Hong Kong investment house, announced that it had appointed an algorithm to its board of directors. Given the same powers as the human board members, the piece of software weighs up financial and business decisions to assess investments in biotechnology and regenerative medicine that could be worth millions of dollars. The algorithm's strength, its creators claim, is its ability to automate the kind of due diligence and historical knowledge about trends that would be difficult for a mere person to spot."</li> <li> The article notes: "Vital (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) will be working for medical company Deep Knowledge Ventures, which specialises in drugs for age-related diseases. It will sit as an 'equal member of its board of directors'. Deep Knowledge’s senior partner, Dmitry Kaminskiy, said: 'The prospect for utilising this approach in portfolio management is very attractive."</li> <li> The article notes: Hong Kong based venture capital fund Deep Knowledge Ventures (DKV) “has appointed VITAL, a machine learning program capable of making investment recommendations in the life science sector, to its board.” ... We're not going there because there's a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion about this, not least because Hong Kong law, as Thomson Reuters points out here, in Hong Kong “The board comprises all of the directors of the company” and “A director must normally be a natural person, except that a private company may have a body corporate as its director if the company is not a member of a listed group.” Unless VITAL is vastly more capable than described, it cannot be considered a 'natural person'. So its 'presence' on the board is cosmetic. There's also the small matter of Directors' liabilities, which companies routinely insure against to to protect their Board members. Obtaining insurance for VITAL's pronouncements would be nigh-on impossible. Let's also ask what happens if VITAL is hacked: would that constitute the Directorial no-no of false and misleading communications? If VITAL crashed, would that constitute failure to disclose? Those questions come before we ponder whether VITAL has the ability to cast a vote, never mind raise its hand to show which way it has voted. A stunt then, albeit an unsettling one: software is on the march and often challenges human expertise. At a guess, VITAL is what previous generations of business intelligence hype called an executive information system, a tool that offers high-level analysis of a business beyond purely operational matters. It's grand that DKV has put such a tool in its Directors' hands, but this software is no more a Board member than Caligula's horse was a senator.</li> <li> The article notes: "'Vital' es el nombre del robot que hace parte de la junta directiva de la japonesa Deep Knowledge Ventures, una empresa de gestión de fondos de inversión localizada en Hong Kong y que se especializa en inversiones de proyectos de biotecnología a mediano y largo plazo. Se trata básicamente de un software con la capacidad para analizar tendencias en las bases de datos de compañías relacionadas con ciencia y con ello predecir inversiones exitosas. Su nombre proviene de 'validating investment tool for advancing life sciences' que traducido al español significa 'herramienta validadora de inversión para el avance de las ciencias de la vida' y fue diseñado por la compañía británica Aging Analytics, que se dedica a llevar a cabo investigaciones en el campo de la biotecnología y la medicina regenerativa. La organización anunció que Vital ya ha realizado dos predicciones exitosas. Aunque hasta ahora no ha tenido voto, el robot ya ayudó a aprobar las inversiones hechas en la compañía Silico Medicine que desarrolla métodos por computadora para descubrir fármacos en el campo del envejecimiento. La segunda inversión fue hecha en la firma Pathway Pharmaceuticals que usa una plataforma llamada OncoFinder para seleccionar y calificar terapias personalizadas contra el cáncer."</li> </ol>

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow VITAL to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)</li></ul>

<ul><ul><li> VITAL has received substantial coverage and analysis from multiple reliable sources:<ol> <li>A 2018 Chinese-language article in Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law (quote from Google Translate): "The emergence of VITAL actually raises a deeper question: What kind of spark will the encounter between corporate law and artificial intelligence? VITAL may be regarded as a director of the company, or it may be regarded as an auxiliary to the decision-making of the company's director (that is, the observer ). But in either case, it will lead to a series of questions in the corporate law context: If VITAL is regarded as a director, will the relevant rules of the traditional company law on directors (such as the directors' obligations) still apply? If not applicable How should it be reconstructed? If VITAL is not regarded as a director, but only as an auxiliary means for directors ’decision-making, is this auxiliary tool also subject to the stipulations of the company law? If the interests of the company are damaged, should VITAL itself bear the responsibility? What kind of responsibility should VITAL bear without life and emotion to match its behavior and identity? All of these will undoubtedly cause challenges and impacts on the company law."</li> <li>A 2015 French-language article in the Multitudes journal (quote from Google Translate): "And if this algorithm one day succeeded in convincing the other five members of its board of directors to invest in a startup presenting itself in a credible way as a specialist in the fight against aging, but led behind the scenes by a gang of jihadists seeking funds for the immortal Allah? Could Vital be held responsible for the casting error? Should we incriminate DKV, the legal owner of this much better software? Or its providers and their sources of information? Or turn against the designer of Vital, this mechanism that we thought was so intelligent?"</li> <li>A 2014 CNN article that is quoting Michael Osborne, an associate professor in machine learning at the University of Oxford: "To be a fully functioning board member, you'd have to spend a lot of your time trying to reason with and arrive at understandings with other board members, and certainly the kind of algorithm that this particular company (DKV) is proposing won't be able to do that. Essentially, all I think they're doing is using the predictions made by this algorithm as kind of a starting point for discussion on the board, which I think is a totally reasonable thing to do, but I think it's a bit of a gimmick to call that an actual board member."</li> <li>A 2014 BBC article that is quoting Noel Sharkey, Professor of the University of Sheffield: "On first sight, it looks like a futuristic idea but on reflection it is really a little bit of publicity hype. A lot of companies use large data search to access what is happening on the market, then the board or trusted workers can decide on the advice. With financial markets, algorithms are delegated with decisions. The idea of the algorithm voting is a gimmick. It is not different from the algorithm making a suggestion and the board voting on it."</li> <li>A 2014 The Register article: "We're not going there because there's a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion about this, not least because Hong Kong law, as Thomson Reuters points out here, in Hong Kong 'The board comprises all of the directors of the company' and 'A director must normally be a natural person, except that a private company may have a body corporate as its director if the company is not a member of a listed group.' Unless VITAL is vastly more capable than described, it cannot be considered a “natural person”. So its “presence” on the board is cosmetic. There's also the small matter of Directors' liabilities, which companies routinely insure against to to protect their Board members. Obtaining insurance for VITAL's pronouncements would be nigh-on impossible. Let's also ask what happens if VITAL is hacked: would that constitute the Directorial no-no of false and misleading communications? ... It's grand that DKV has put such a tool in its Directors' hands, but this software is no more a Board member than Caligula's horse was a senator."</li> <li>A 2014 Vice article: "For the moment at least, this is a gimmick. There is literally nothing to suggest that VITAL has any sort of capabilities beyond any other proprietary analysis software. But Deep Knowledge Ventures might be on to something. To keep with the VC-theme, what happens when robots are able to analyze every prospective startup, consider the market, and make investment decisions autonomously? What happens when it can argue about the best way to nurture those startups? That sort of capability is on the way, and this particular stunt aside, they might eventually be better than humans at it."</li> </ol>Cunard (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)</li></ul></ul>


 * @User:Cunard as most of your sources say. It was a publicity stunt WP:NOTNEWS MistyGraceWhite (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS links to the guideline Notability (events), which provides more guidance about "whether an article about past, current, and breaking news events should be written, merged, deleted or further developed". The guideline discusses these criteria:<ul><li>WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: VITAL was appointed to the board of directors in 2014. Sources published in 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2019 have provide significant coverage and analysis of VITAL.</li><li>WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE: VITAL was appointed to the board of directors of a Hong Kong-based venture capital firm. The sources include a French journal (Multitudes), a Chinese journal (Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law), a Japanese newspaper (The Nikkei), UK news publications and books (BBC, Daily Mirror, Edward Elgar Publishing, Pluto Press, and The Register), and US news publications and books (CNN, Fortune, Harper, The New York Observer, Vice, and Wired).</li></ul>Cunard (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * no one discusses that the news exists: "VITAL was appointed to the board of a Venture Capital". The problem is you listed the article in the category software and no one of the articles you mention confirms the real existence of the software. As you noticed, the software was not patented and allegedly used only internally by a Venture Capital which doesn't even have an office or address. It is indeed impossible to verify the real existence of the software.
 * Why did you not categorize the article with a different topic: mass media or artificial intelligence? It was my suggestion in the previous AfD discusison. If we remove the 'publicity stunt' language and the churnalism, the case of VITAL (even if the sotware never existed) might be interesting for sociologists or philosophers. Definitely, not for computer scientists or investors. Would you be interested to reclassify the article and link it to the proper debate in ethics and sociology? Postconfused (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * VITAL is proprietary software. Proprietary software says that such software can be "private, internal software". VITAL is "private, internal software". For an independent reliable source to "confir[m] the real existence of the software", the source's author would need to have direct access to VITAL. But only Deep Knowledge Ventures has access to it. No reliable sources have said Deep Knowledge Ventures gave them access to the software. This is expected since "private, internal software" is considered a trade secret. All reliable sources have written news articles, journal articles, and books with the belief that the software exists even when they think the appointment of VITAL to a board is "publicity hype" or a "stunt". Therefore, Wikipedia should follow the reliable sources and say the software exists and is a publicity stunt. From Verifiability, "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors." I categorized VITAL as a software and publicity stunt because those are the terms used by most reliable sources. A few sources have used "artificial intelligence" in reference to VITAL and I have found none that categorize it as "mass media". I think the "publicity stunt" details should be retained because they are well-supported by the reliable sources so are due weight. "Would you be interested to reclassify the article and link it to the proper debate in ethics and sociology?" – are there reliable sources that discuss "the proper debate in ethics and sociology" that are not currently used in the article? Please post those sources here. I would support expanding the article with those sources if any are found. Cunard (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * DELETE per nom. I rewrote the article, but there is NOT significant coverage to verify the existence of this software. Perhaps it can be marged into a different article. Most of the content and references are from a deleted article Deep Knowledge Venture. Postconfused (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe there are sufficient sources that meet the requirements for establishing notability. I'm not concerned over the title of this article. Topic meets WP:GNG. <b style="font-family: Courier; color: darkgreen;"> HighKing</b>++ 17:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC) <ul><ul><li>, would you explain how these two journal articles are "incidental/mere mentions"?<ol> <li> <li></li> </ol>
 * Delete per the nomination; overly much of the sourcing is carried over from a deleted article, which, unfortunately,  did not testify to the topic's notability and does not seem to do so now.   serial   # 11:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Coverage in the sources is incidental/mere mentions. Does not establish notability. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

<ol> <li> The article notes: "早在 2014 年，人工智能对公司法的挑战已隐隐若现. 研究生物科技与再生医学的英国公司 Aging Analytics 于 2014 年 5 月宣布，启用一款名为 VITAL(Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences)的人工智能工具，并授权香港的风投公司 Deep Knowledge Ventures 将该人工智能用作 该公司的投资委员. 在被记者问及为何采用这一人工智能时，Deep Knowledge Venture 的高级合伙人卡明斯基(Kaminskiy)称，人会受情感左右，有主观情绪，会犯错误，但 VITAL 这样的机器只会用逻 辑思维，不可能因为一时意气出错. 人类投资者的直觉和机器的逻辑性相结合，会打造一支完美的 团队，将错误的风险降低到最小. 〔1〕VITAL 入场后，已经帮助公司批准了两项投资:一个是在抗衰老 医药领域开发计算机辅助方法的 Silico Medicine，另一个是使用选择个人化抗癌治疗方法的 Pathway Pharmaceuticals. Aging Analytics 公司声称，VITAL 在投资委员会和其他委员是平等的. 事实上， VITAL 在当时虽然冠以“投资委员”之名，但实际上并非对任何的投资都享有跟其他委员同等的表决 权. 而且，根据香港公司法的规定，VITAL 也无法获得“董事”地位. 因此，Aging Analytics 公司的其 他委员认为，将之视为投资委员会的“观察员(observer)”可能更为适当. VITAL 的出现，实质上引出一个更深层次的问题:公司法与人工智能的相遇将会擦出何种火花? VITAL 可能被视为公司的董事，也可能被视为公司董事决策的辅助(即观察员)，但不管是哪一种情 形，均会导致公司法语境的一连串追问:如果 VITAL 被视为董事，则传统公司法关于董事的相关规 则(比如董事义务规则)是否仍然适用?如果不能适用，应当如何重构?如若 VITAL 不被视为董事， 而仅仅是被视为董事决策的辅助手段，则这种辅助性工具是否也受到公司法的规约?如董事因听信 VITAL 所作出的决策导致公司利益受损，VITAL 本身是否应当承担责任?无生命无感情之 VITAL 又该承担何种责任，才能与其行为与身份相匹配?凡此种种，无疑均会对公司法造成挑战与冲击." From Google Translate: "As early as 2014, the challenge of artificial intelligence to corporate law was looming. Aging Analytics, a British company that researches biotechnology and regenerative medicine, announced in May 2014 that it had launched an artificial intelligence tool called VITAL (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) and authorized Hong Kong venture capital company Deep Knowledge Ventures to use Artificial intelligence is used as the company's investment committee. When asked by reporters why this artificial intelligence was adopted, Kaminskiy, a senior partner at Deep Knowledge Ventures, said that people will be influenced by emotions, have subjective emotions and make mistakes, but machines like VITAL will only be logically thinking, so it is impossible to make mistakes because of a moment of impatience. The combination of human investor intuition and the logic of the machine will create a perfect team and minimize the risk of error. 〔1〕 After VITAL entered the market, it has helped the company to approve two investments: one is Silico Medicine, which develops computer-aided methods in the field of anti-aging medicine, and the other is Pathway Pharmaceuticals, which chooses personalized anti-cancer treatment methods. Aging Analytics claims that VITAL is equal to the investment committee and other members. In fact, although VITAL was called the 'investment committee' at the time, it did not actually have the same voting rights as any other committee for any investment. Moreover, according to the provisions of the Hong Kong Company Law, VITAL cannot obtain the status of 'director'. Therefore, other members of Aging Analytics believe that it may be more appropriate to consider them as “observers” of the investment committee. The emergence of VITAL actually raises a deeper question: What kind of spark will the encounter between corporate law and artificial intelligence? VITAL may be regarded as a director of the company, or it may be regarded as an auxiliary to the decision-making of the company's director (that is, the observer ). But in either case, it will lead to a series of questions in the corporate law context: If VITAL is regarded as a director, will the relevant rules of the traditional company law on directors (such as the directors' obligations) still apply? If not applicable How should it be reconstructed? If VITAL is not regarded as a director, but only as an auxiliary means for directors ’decision-making, is this auxiliary tool also subject to the stipulations of the company law? If the interests of the company are damaged, should VITAL itself bear the responsibility? What kind of responsibility should VITAL bear without life and emotion to match its behavior and identity? All of these will undoubtedly cause challenges and impacts on the company law."</li> <li> The article notes: "epuis le 13 mai 2014, il est le sixième membre du conseil d’administration de la société hongkongaise Deep knowledge ventures, ou DKV. Il n’a pas besoin de porter cravate et costume de grand ponte. Il s’appelle Vital, d’un acronyme que les autres têtes d’œuf du conseil ont sans doute oublié mais qui en dit beaucoup sur le sens de sa présence au sommet de cette entreprise de capital-risque des secteurs de la lutte contre le cancer, la médecine régénérative et les traitements personnalisés : « Outil de validation pour les investissements dans la recherche scientifique » . Vital n’a pas le physique de l’emploi : c’est un algorithme. Plus aucune décision d’investissement, néanmoins, n’est aujourd’hui prise par DKV sans qu’il n’ait voix au chapitre. Car le robot, pour peu qu’on le nomme ainsi comme l’ont fait la plupart des journalistes ayant chanté sa finesse d’analyse autant que sa puissance de calcul, est un incorruptible. Sa promotion, son crédit au sein du pool de décideurs de Deep knowledge ventures, il les doit à sa neutralité. À la rigueur toute mathématique de ses avis sur les sociétés candidates à la manne financière. Mais cette absence de subjectivité n’est-elle pas un leurre ? Même autonome dans l’exercice quotidien de sa mission, une machine programmée par des humains peut-elle être considérée comme neutre ? Et infaillible ? Car Vital pourrait se tromper et soutenir un investissement nuisible. Et si cet algorithme réussissait un jour à convaincre les cinq autres membres de son conseil d’administration d’investir dans une startup se présentant de façon crédible comme spécialisée dans la lutte contre le vieillissement, mais dirigée en sous-main par une bande de djihadistes cherchant des fonds pour l’immortel Allah ? Vital pourrait-il être tenu pour responsable de l’erreur de casting ? Faudrait-il incriminer la société DKV, juridiquement propriétaire de ce logiciel ô combien supérieur ? Ou ses prestataires et leurs sources d’information ? Ou bien se retourner contre le concepteur de Vital, cette mécanique qu’on croyait pourtant si intelligente?" From Google Translate: "Since May 13, 2014, he is the sixth member of the board of directors of the Hong Kong company Deep Knowledge Ventures, or DKV. He does not need to wear a tie and a suit. His name is Vital, from an acronym that the other egg heads of the council have no doubt forgotten but which says a lot about the meaning of his presence at the top of this venture capital business in the fight against cancer, regenerative medicine and personalized treatments: 'Validation tool for investments in scientific research'. Vital doesn’t have the physique of a job: it’s an algorithm. No investment decision, however, is made today by DKV without it having a say. Because the robot, as far as it is called like most journalists who have sung its finesse of analysis as much as its computing power, is incorruptible. His promotion, his credit within the pool of decision makers of Deep knowledge ventures, he owes to his neutrality. Strictly mathematically speaking, his opinions on companies that are candidates for the financial windfall. But isn't this lack of subjectivity an illusion? Even autonomous in the daily exercise of its mission, can a machine programmed by humans be considered neutral? And foolproof? Because Vital could be wrong and support a harmful investment. And if this algorithm one day succeeded in convincing the other five members of its board of directors to invest in a startup presenting itself in a credible way as a specialist in the fight against aging, but led behind the scenes by a gang of jihadists seeking funds for the immortal Allah? Could Vital be held responsible for the casting error? Should we incriminate DKV, the legal owner of this much better software? Or its providers and their sources of information? Or turn against the designer of Vital, this mechanism that we thought was so intelligent?"</li> </ol>

In addition to these journal articles, there are also numerous news articles whose main topic is VITAL. Cunard (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)</li></ul></ul>
 * I am happy with my view as expressed above and I don't intend to enter into detailed line by line discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: WP:CORPDEPTH says: "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." I have provided examples here of VITAL receiving "deep coverage" containing commentary and analysis about it. I am not able to determine from reviewing the "delete" comments why this depth of analysis is insufficient and what depth of coverage would convince them that VITAL passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Cunard (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per the nom. Fails WP:ONEEVENT and lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV. Tangential mentions just don't cut it when it comes to notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:ONEVENT redirects to Notability (people). VITAL is a software, not a person. I explained here why VITAL does not violate Notability (events) or WP:NOTNEWS. Regarding lacking sustained significant coverage, the VITAL announcement happened on 13 May 2014, and VITAL received detailed coverage in two journal articles published months or even years after that announcement: a 2015 article in Multitudes and a 2018 article in the Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law (published by the East China University of Political Science and Law). Regarding tangential mentions, the 2015 Multitudes article devotes 545 words to analysis and commentary about VITAL. The 2018 Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law article devotes 443 words to analysis and commentary about VITAL (the word count was computed after translating the Chinese to English in Google Translate). Journal articles that devote 500 words to commentary about VITAL are not tangential mentions. Cunard (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Google can mislead editors. A journal with a ZERO impact factor, maybe it is not a reliable source, especially if it is written in Chinese and you must use a google translator to read it. Second, Multitudes is an interesting pubblication, I do personally read it, but it focuses on politics, art, and philosophy. The source draws on algorithm, social activism, policy, and cultural theory not computer sciences. I do appreciate your work, I also substanially helped improve yuor article, but I wasn't able to verify the content. So far there is no evidence that VITAL existed. It is a hoax. Did you find any references at all from a computer sciences journal or magazine? Last but not least, if the AFD article is deleted, please do not cut and paste the same content in a new article eg Machine Learning VITAL. We have been discussing the same sources and content for almost two months. Postconfused (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Chinese journal is published by the East China University of Political Science and Law. The journal has been cited by a Routledge book (link). This book from Springer said: "CSSCI, the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index, is a project which Nanjing University handpicks the top journals with high academic quality from thousands of journals in China. The journals selected are determined by quantitative indicators like the factor of influence and the rate of quoting, along with the opinions of some experts. Good authors in China prefer to publish their articles in CSSCI journals, generally speaking, because of the higher quality of the journal. Moreover, the promotion of lecturers and associate professors depends on the quantity of the articles published in CSSCI journals as well. According to the latest 2017–2018 version, there are 23 CSSCI law journals.80" In footnote 80 is the Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law. Since the journal is in the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index, I consider it a high quality reliable source. There is no requirement for the topic to be discussed in computer science publications or for the Wikipedia article to discuss computer science. It is fine for the article to discuss "social activism, policy, and cultural theory" since that is what the high quality reliable sources focus on. Reliable journals like Multitudes and the Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law consider VITAL not to be a hoax. Cunard (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * see Journal Impact Factor. You are confusing the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index for the Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD), which is the bibliographic database and citation index produced by the Chinese Academy of Sciences and hosted by Thomson Reuters.  The journal you mentioned is neither listed in the CSCD nor in Web Sciences and has a ZERO score in the Science Citation Index. Postconfused (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:HOAX: We already established that Deep Knowledge Ventures is not a realiable source. It has been accused by the itnernational press to create fake news (eg. [COVID report]). Both articles releted to the Venture Capital and its founder have been deleted from Wikipedia. Postconfused (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Currently this is somewhat leaning towards deletion, but it's not that clear.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Petrin, M. (2019). Corporate Management in the Age of AI. Columbia Business Law Review, 2019(3), 965–1030. Retrieved from https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/CBLR/article/view/5118

"Recent media reports and press releases have created the impression that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is on the verge of assuming an important role in corporate management. While, upon closer inspection, it turns out that these stories should not always be taken at face value. [...] In the case of VITAL, it turned out that initial reports were technically incorrect, given that Hong Kong law does not allow non-human entities to serve on boards. The phenomenon was also exaggerated, as Deep Knowledge Ventures later acknowledged that VITAL’s role was a little different from that of human directors, noting that the firm treats the software “as a member of our board with observer status” on the basis of an agreement that the board “would not make positive investment decisions without corroboration by VITAL.” As one commentator noted, this arrangement was no different from practices at other financial companies that use large data searches to survey markets and generate suggestions for boards or managers."

Martin Petrin, Professor of Corporate Law & Governance and Vice Dean (Innovation), University College London.

Postconfused (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * <S>Delete</S> the sourcing is very poor; insufficient coverage to provide in-depth, persistent coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per NCORP. The sources presented do not, unfortunately, do this. ——  Serial # 09:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You already !voted back on 14 May.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck. Thanks for the reminder ; it's not so bad it needs deleting twice :) ——  Serial # 13:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Iridescent's wisdom about your sig shines through. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Not seeing any significant coverage in reliable independent sources, just passing mentions.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I reverted the collapsing of nearly my entire comment which had shown that VITAL has received substantial analysis over a period of years. Cunard (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

<ul><ul><li>Thank you for finding more reliable sources that provide analysis of VITAL and its being a publicity stunt. This demonstrates that VITAL continues to receive analysis years after it was announced. VITAL is notable as a publicity stunt. The sources that non-critically reported about the announcement that VITAL was appointed a board member were "gullible outlets". But the sources that provided critical analysis and skepticism about the appointment (I provide a list of them here) are reliable sources since they were not acting "gullibly". I maintain that VITAL passes Notability through the sources I presented in the AfD, particularly these two strong journal articles:<ol> <li> The article devotes 443 words to analysis and commentary about VITAL (the word count was computed after translating the Chinese to English in Google Translate).</li> <li> The article devotes 545 words to analysis and commentary about VITAL.</li> </ol>Cunard (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)</li></ul></ul>
 * Comment “In “Homo Deus,” Harari writes that, in 2014, a Hong Kong venture-capital firm “broke new ground by appointing an algorithm named vital to its board.” A footnote provides a link to an online article, which makes clear that, in fact, there had been no such board appointment, and that the press release announcing it was a lure for “gullible” outlets. When I asked Harari if he’d accidentally led readers into believing a fiction, he appeared untroubled, arguing that the book’s larger point about A.I. encroachment still held.“ From The New Yorker, the magazine is identified by the Columbia Journalism Review as the leading publication for rigorous fact checking . Cunard: are you still sure of your sources?  Postconfused (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, the source provided pass WP:GNG, this appears to be more than PR as the software has received significant and ongoing coverage. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 23:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * comment Cunard: I respect your passion and your strength in defending this article. However, repeating exactly the same argument over and over can become less helpful. I think it is very clear that you consider those two last sources reliable, you actually define them “Strong”. However, Multitudes does not appear a peer-review journal, it has a very low impact factor, and one of its two founders Toni Negri has been condemned for terrorism. The other source comes from a journal which is not indexed by the Chinese Science Citation Database or Web of Science. The first article is from 2018 and the second from 2015.

I brought to your attention two articles from 2019. One peer reviewed article published in the Columbia Business Law Review and the other one  published in The New Yorker. Both sources are well known and their credibility is unquestionable. In addition, these two articles are more recent (2019) than any sources your provided so far.

In both articles VITAL Software is described as a HOAX. They agree that such a machine learning software never existed and it has never been appointed to the board of a company, also because it would have been illegal.

By hoax, I mean "News stories that contain facts that are either false or inaccurate and are presented as legitimate facts. This category is also known in the research community either as half-truth or factoid stories"

I do think the best solution is to rewrite a more comprehensive article on the recent debate on AI and corporate management. As you are aware, I am drafting a new article Robo Director and included VITAL merging the present article. Unfortunately, I am not very fast like you in writing articles. Postconfused (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.