Talk:AI boom
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg)
 | On 17 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from AI spring to AI boom. The result of the discussion was Moved. |
AI boom started in 2016
editGo 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
- Or uppercase "spring" as AI Spring, like in Arab Spring. Although we don't capitalize the words for seasons ordinarily, this could be considered a proper name for a specific series of events and developments. — BarrelProof (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support moving to AI boom. Remsense留 01:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support move to “AI boom”. -Gluonz (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Also, this was the title of the page until around a week ago. -Gluonz (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support move to AI boom. I have not heard the term "AI spring" anywhere. Some searching shows that reliable sources like The New York Times and The Economist only use "AI boom". Toadspike (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support per the above. --GnocchiFan (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Support AI Boom is definitely a way more popular term. LynxesDesmond 🐈 (talk) 10:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Comment This is not the first AI boom or spring [1] or even the second [2] according to some. Senorangel (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Years
editWhen 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Starting time should not be pushed back even if popularity rises more later on. Senorangel (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Lead Section Refinement
editThe 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)
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)
Article needs more focus on "AI boom"
editThe 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)
- This probably grew out of adding articles online, without a more defined structure in mind. Senorangel (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
more on misinformation
editConcerns 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)
- 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)
Necessity of standalone article
editIt'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)
- 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)
Transition into coverage of "AI Boom"
editThe 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)
- 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)
Related article
editThe 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)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe 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)
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)
The "cultural" subection
editOK, 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)
- ALTHOUGH, it may go into ==ADVANCES== (===Language=== subsection) instead 81.89.66.133 (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)