Deletion of Friendly artificial intelligence

Comment: None of those articles above substantiate and rigorously define the concept of "Friendly AI" as a scientific theory|theory beyond merely being . Further, the books you linked are citing non-notable sources for the materials on "Friendly AI" theory and are only covering the topic in 2-3 pages maximum at minimal depth. Oppose Keep on those grounds. As for a merge, I oppose that based on the argumentation that it isn't clear that "Friendly AI" as a  can be separated cleanly from this loose concept of the "theory" of "Friendly AI", which indeed has no credible sources which detail the subject matter. That is to say, people are saying that AI should be "friendly" and confusing or not seeing that there was indeed a speculative, non-rigorous fringe theory that specifies a kind of architecture for doing this. The Atlantic articles are blog-like, and directly link to the non-notable sources in question as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NEO)

Comment: There are several issues here: the first is that Friendly AI is and always has been . That it has lasted this long on the Wikipedia is evidence of the lack of interest to researchers who would have otherwise recognized this and nominated deletion sooner. As we all know, Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Second, even if you manage to find  sources, this does not substantiate an article for it when it can and should be referenced in the biography for the author. Frankly, that is a stretch itself, given that it doesn't pass  as a verifiable topic, but I don't think anyone would object to it. Third, in , the minimum condition is that the information can be verified from a notable source. This strengthens the deletion argument, as there are no ''primary, peer-reviewed sources'' on the topic of Friendly AI. And it is not sufficient to pass notability by proxy; using a notable source that references non-notable sources, such as Friendly AI web publications, would invalidate such a reference immediately. Fourth, even if we were to accept such a stand-alone article, it would be difficult to establish it to an acceptable quality due to the immense falsehood of the topic. This kind of undue weight issue is mentioned in . Therefore, and in light of these issues, I ''strongly recommend'' deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOTABLE||WP:TRUTH||WP:TRUTH||WP:TRUTH)