DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:AI boom

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

AI boom started in 2016

[edit]

Go playing by AlphaGo was in 2016, fake images by Nvidia was in 2018, GPT was in 2018.

It definitely didn’t start booming in 2020, but a few years before.

Each of these above were a surprise at how soon they were invented, earlier, experts were seeing such types of AI at least a decade off.—Homei (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The rapid advances in AI research and the ever-improving quality of AI applications began in the mid-to-late 2010s, although these applications only gradually became available to the general public and reported in the media beginning in the early 2020s. Maxeto0910 (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which one is the "Spring" and which one is the "boom"? If the Spring is generative AI, that may exclude AlphaGo. GPT is even later and more specific. Senorangel (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 October 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sintax13 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sintax13 (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 December 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


AI spring → AI boom – A minority of sources refer to the topic as an "AI spring"; most use the terminology "AI boom". 2 references in the article use spring, and 5 use boom. Additionally, see Google News hits for boom and spring; the vast majority of "spring" hits are false positives (referring to the season or last name spring), while there are a multitude of articles that use boom. Frostly (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Years

[edit]

When did the AI boom start? The opening sentence was changed today, and the starting timeframe changed from the early 2020s to the mid-2010s. I’m wondering which timeframe should be included in the first sentence. –Gluonz talk contribs 15:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is more in line with other parts of the article. The date can be narrowed down in the future if its scope becomes better defined. Senorangel (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Almost all of the article appears to be about 2020 and later. Only a brief part of the history section seems to cover any pre-2020 events. –Gluonz talk contribs 00:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before 2020 there was not as much interest in creating an article like this, but high quality sources [3] [4] [5] [6] do exist. Senorangel (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. What do sources in general have to say in the way of the starting timeframe? –Gluonz talk contribs 00:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might take historians some time to agree on a defined start time. They should be similar to what Google Books [7] shows. Senorangel (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s probably true. However, the Google Books Ngram Viewer excludes the early 2020s entirely, so I don’t think that can be the sole definitive source for a starting time. –Gluonz talk contribs 16:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it shows up significantly around 2015 or 2016, that would be the starting point regardless of what follows right? Senorangel (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but if, for example, usage increased by one thousand times starting in 2020, then anything from before then might look like a tiny blip in the chart. –Gluonz talk contribs 22:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Starting time should not be pushed back even if popularity rises more later on. Senorangel (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Homei, @Maxeto0910 do you happen to have sources earlier than these [8] [9] [10] [11] about the latest AI boom? Senorangel (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found this one: The Guardian (October 2016) which correctly talks about being at the cusp of an AI boom.
And this one: Robin Hanson (December 2016), the economist Robert Hanson offering a contrarian position in December 2016 that the current AI boom is bound to bust. (Which didn’t happen, but he named the boom the boom.)
I would thus date it again to 2016 for the earliest mentions of a current AI boom. Homei (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The removal of any starting time from the opening sentence, as has occurred, is probably a good solution for now. –Gluonz talk contribs 13:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the AI boom is supposed to be just the period of rapid AI progress in recent years (unlike the larger, longer-time AI era of which it is part of), I think it is indeed important to state a rough time frame during which the AI boom started. If the exact start of this period is controversial (or at least not universally agreed on), it should be described as exactly that.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section Refinement

[edit]

The lead mentions philosophical and religious impacts, AI alignment and qualia, but the page does not later elaborate on these points beyond the initial statement and citations. Either these topics deserve expansion within the impacts or concerns sections with published writings or statements, or their mention is less integral to the topic and they can be moved as small mentions within their best associated sections instead of the article's intro. UAguy9001 (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Technical Writing

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 February 2024 and 18 March 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LaSulaim (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by LaSulaim (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs more focus on "AI boom"

[edit]

The article as it's currently written seems to focus more on the recent history and development of AI rather than specifically on the "AI boom." A more focused article on the AI boom would emphasize the growth, advancements, and implications of AI within a certain period, highlighting characteristic key events, breakthroughs, trends... supported by reliable sources. Many of the articles cited have no mention of an AI boom/spring and much of the information fails verification. Mooonswimmer 01:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This probably grew out of adding articles online, without a more defined structure in mind. Senorangel (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding in Page as Upscaling/sharping pictures and videos from ultra lowest to ultra highest definition, and Dubbing for audio and video Hollywood like and much more in AI boom page. 46.191.233.207 (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

more on misinformation

[edit]

Concerns section mentions "uncanny or flawed responses." I think this could be expanded into a subsection about unintentional misinformation, about/mentioning google search AI producing misinfo, chatGPT false info, AI-generated books with false info, etc. This would be different than the impersonation misinformation section bc it would be without intent or malice 2601:282:1983:D630:B0E2:221D:155C:6F3B (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, particularly as these things are increasingly being targeted for criticism. See some of the media coverage in the last few weeks, for example. [12] [13] Nice.frogboy (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Necessity of standalone article

[edit]

It's not clear to me the purpose of creating and maintaining this Wikipedia article when Progress in artificial intelligence already exists. Surely if the advances here are notable, they should be included in the other article?

I am concerned primarily that this article seems to be uncritically regurgitating a lot of corporate press releases (whether directly or through another generally reliable source), and seems to be primarily a list of technologies. Mintopop (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the current boom and includes non-technical aspects. Progress seems to focus on the technical side and includes previous booms. Senorangel (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transition into coverage of "AI Boom"

[edit]

The article has a clear title but does not necessarily address said topic. The article focuses on the most recent milestones of the AI development, rather than growth and breakthrough of the tool. I believe including this quote from 'Our World Data' would promote a seamless transition to work towards addressing the actual boom of AI. "Just 10 years ago, no machine could reliably provide language or image recognition at a human level. But, as the chart shows, AI systems have become steadily more capable and are now beating humans in tests in all these domains.3"[14] Ahernandez14 (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shifting this article to more closely address the topic is a great idea, but I don't think this is the way to do it. Per the footnote to that paragraph: It is important to remember that while these are remarkable achievements — and show very rapid gains — these are the results from specific benchmarking tests. Outside of tests, AI models can fail in surprising ways and do not reliably achieve performance that is comparable with human capabilities.
One of the problems the article suffers from is that "AI" is so broad that even otherwise reliable sources are conflating completely different technologies. What, exactly, is the connection between protein folding used to invent novel drug treatments and AI slop? Answers on a postcard, please. Grayfell (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Related article

[edit]

The article age of artificial intelligence was recently de-redirected, but it remains to be established as a content article rather than a disambiguation page. The topic appears closely related to the AI boom. Should that article be merged into this one? WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much of the content should be merged, since many of the sources there do not look reliable (WP:FORBESCON, etc.). But we certainly don't need both pages. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Library 100 Critical Approaches to Information Research

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 March 2025 and 11 June 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bubbles2025 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Bubbles2025 (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "cultural" subection

[edit]

OK, so the "cultural" subsection of the "impact" looks like this now: 

Cultural

During the AI boom, different groups emerged, ranging from the ones that want to accelerate AI development as quickly as possible to those that are more concerned about AI safety and would like to "decelerate". According to a survey published in April 2025 by Pew Research Center, 43% of American adults thought that AI technology was more likely to harm themselves in the future, while 24% thought that AI would was more likely to benefit themselves in the future. Women were more likely than men to be concerned about AI technology.

It doesn't describe how AI boom changes the way we communicate! Pretty sure there's a bunch of blogpost and some proper statistics on how AI "eases"/"improves" communication. As well as some published posts about the concerns of AI making a foreigner hardly distinguishable from a native on the internet.

An example off the top of my head:

My text:

I type in Runglish, a "dialect" that can be found in the list of lishes. A person can refine, de-lish/de-dialect/de-slang own text on the Internet using LLM chatbots or stuff like that.

LLMs' output ("please refine the following text for the norms of grammar: <YOUR_HEXT_HERE>" pretext) I type in Runglish, a "dialect" that you can find on the list of lishes. Anyone can refine, de-lish, or remove slang from their own text on the internet using LLM chatbots or similar tools. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ALTHOUGH, it may go into ==ADVANCES== (===Language=== subsection) instead 81.89.66.133 (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI 2027

[edit]

alright so it dosen't necessarly be on this article but maybe perhaps on the main artifical inteligence article or create a dedicated article about it, it is a study done by AI professors or whatever it's called i don't know, this study is important to be put on wikipedia as it has implications about the future, there are news sites that talked about it, including BBC, so it is a study that is notable enough to be on wikipedia, here's the website: https://ai-2027.com/ 109.81.89.240 (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a study, it's just a bunch of speculative - albeit seemingly reasonably informed - predictions about the future, on a blog hosting site. Wikipedia doesn't predict, and wikipedia doesn't present speculative information unless it's highly reliable and via secondary sourcing. Other editors may be interested in pursuing it, but if you feel the information is meaningful, you should do some of the legwork yourself to properly source it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there is information about AI 2027 in the wikipedia article "Daniel Kokotajlo (researcher)" and it even has 3 citations/sources, so you know, why not put information about AI 2027 on other articles or create a dedicated article about it? 109.81.89.240 (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Started in the late 2010s"?

[edit]

I think we are being too loose in our definition of "AI boom". I haven't taken a close look at sources, but I think it's ludicrous for anyone to suggest with a straight face that the period of advancement in AI before ChatGPT (i.e. pre-2022) was anywhere near the height of the current frenzy to incorporate generative AI into everything and the mass hysteria over its implications. Yes, there was much work on AI in the 2010s, but was it really widely considered a "boom"? Even if the answer is "yes", the differences between these two periods are obvious enough to make a distinction, rather than claim that it was all part of the same "boom".

I see that this article was created in 2023. Indeed, for some reason, whenever something like this happens, I've found that editors are often tempted to go back in time and find similar or tangentially related incidents that may also fit the new article title, which they then draw a forced connection between. (I was so relieved that Suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! managed to not fall in the same trap.) I've explained this before, but I'll say it again here: having an article titled "AI boom" does not imply that there has only been one AI boom in the history of mankind, or that this article is a list of all AI booms that have happened in the history of mankind — only that this is the most, if not only, notable instance of an AI boom in the history of mankind. The concept is called WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It's fine to include contextual information about precursors to the current AI boom in a "background" section, but it's not OK to lump these two together. "AI boom" is really more accurately described as "generative AI boom" — in fact, that's literally what both of the sources in the first sentence say.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fair bit of discussion above about this problem. I think it's inherent in the use of as vague a term as "boom" as the subject. A 'boom' in...what, specifically? Investments? Public perception/recognition? Rate of increase in abilities? As far as those three things, it's easy to point to the early 2020's, not the 2010's.
As well - a 'boom' is explicitly a sudden burst of something. A thunderclap, Wile E Coyote detonating some TNT. Which is to say that suggesting the start of a boom is gradual and going back to the 2010's is as silly as the Coyote.
I think the very last comment in the "Years" section of discussion above is the most measured. There is no exact start of the boom, so it should be characterized as such, rather than trying to shoehorn a date into the definition. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we find that sources disagree, we should first determine if there is a timeframe that is most commonly cited. If so, we will fulfill our role as source-summarizers and simply describe that consensus ("generally considered the 2020s, but sometimes extended to the 2010s"). We should also consider if other timeframes cited are merely using "AI boom" as a generic term and therefore referring to distinct periods; if so, I think this article should narrow its focus on the generative AI boom that began in the 2020s, and then either discuss previous AI booms in a "Background" section or have a separate article on the general concept, à la Cold War vs. Cold war (term). InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have thoughts on this? I would propose either a move to Generative AI boom to clarify/narrow the scope of this article, or split this article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I question the existence of this article. The rate of change in the 'AI boom' is seemingly exponential; what's written here today is outdated tomorrow. I wonder if a more meaningful - and more easily kept current - article might be Timeline of AI progress or some such, where it's more of a list than a narrative, so the progression can be better visualized. But I'm delving into metacommentary, and it would take significant effort to bring that to fruition - effort I can't volunteer myself to do! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would say that the 2020s generative AI boom is certainly notable, but any "AI booms" before then? Certainly, those may not meet the threshold of notability and can easily be merged into an existing article about progress in AI. But take a look at this: from The New York Times yesterday (emphasis added):
Nvidia Is Now Worth $5 Trillion as It Consolidates Power in A.I. Boom

As Jensen Huang, the chief executive of the chip making giant Nvidia, traveled to Asia to meet with President Trump on Wednesday, his company’s value topped $5 trillion. It was a show of wealth that would have been unthinkable a few years ago.

But that was before the ChatGPT chatbot ignited an artificial intelligence boom that is remaking the global economy. It was before other tech titans began spending hundreds of billions of dollars on construction projects on almost every continent. And it was before Nvidia’s computer chips, the most essential and expensive component in almost every A.I. scheme, became a linchpin of the Trump administration’s foreign policy.

There you have it: it is clear that when sources use the term "AI boom", they are generally referring to the 2020s period of fervent activity in the realm of generative AI (which has bled into other areas of the AI realm) that explicitly began in 2022 with the launch of ChatGPT, making "AI boom" merely a contraction of "generative AI boom", akin to how "Bay Area" is a common contraction of "San Francisco Bay Area" even though the term could theoretically mean any area by a bay. Unless someone objects, I will WP:BOLDly clarify/narrow the scope of the article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion: AI boom history should not be about AI history

[edit]

Can we shorten that section to just AI boom history? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]