GPT4-Chan: Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 02:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions .  Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 02:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (reluctantly): I would argue the sources provided establish notability, as there are several of them, they are independent, and the coverage seems to be significant in the few that I checked out.   It's not the best article I've ever seen, and I really hate to give the creators of the software an eternal perch on one of the few reputable corners of the internet, but it meets our criteria for notability and verifiability.  WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk ) 02:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In my opinion, in the best case, the article is, even if potentially notable, not ready for the main space and should be worked on as a draft.  Most of what has been written is not usable and does not belong here at all.  Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 03:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Since the topic is covered by multiple sources, it does establish notability and verifiability.  However, it is understandable that such a controversial, inflammatory, and possibly harmful topic could not be welcomed on the wiki.  The article could either be left up so multiple people can correct, improve, and make sure the article just informs and does not promote the topic, or it could possibly be moved back into draft space and worked on until it meets the requirements and/or safety standards of those who would want to remove it.  That way, we can make sure the wiki is not promoting this topic and people's concerns can be addressed by their contributions to the article.  Targed ( talk ) 04:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Consider: this was a valuable and noteworthy social experiment.  An AI was trained over a toxic environment, and reflected this toxicity.  It's important to get a visceral sense of the potential dangers of AI, and Yannic's work did just that.  As an analogy: YouTube censors harm, so you can find many videos of miraculous car accident-avoidances but no grizzly car accidents.  This will give the viewer a false psychological sense that a miraculous escape is likely, while a grizzly accident is unlikely.  So is this YouTube policy ultimately helpful or harmful?  2A0E:1D47:D201:6300:A83D:5A11:143E:127E ( talk ) 10:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Meets WP:GNG via the references in the article including Engadget , Vice , Fortune , The Register , and a staff article at Thenextweb .  A search finds enough WP:SUSTAINED coverage in academic sources as well eg [50] [51] (later published in IEEE conference ), [52] , (i.e. even if we consider this topic an event, it has become a WP:CASESTUDY ) There may be unreliable sourcing in the article (I see a blog, a substack, and some other iffy stuff), but we can WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM .  — siro χ o 06:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Extensive coverage in non-primary sources clearly establish notability.  The subject matter being controversial or inflammatory is irrelevant to its inclusion in an encyclopedia.  Draftifying would only slow down work on improving it.  Owen× ☎ 12:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (withdrawn).  As other editors have said, I can see now that the sources are definitely notable enough for WP:GNG and the article isn't nearly bad enough to WP:TNT .  I might have been a bit hasty in doing this when I saw that the article had been rejected three times and no improvements were made before moving it to the main space...  Popo Dameron ⁠ talk 19:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: speedy keep