Template talk:Artificial intelligence

Image

The current pic, which I have added to the template, is at top, and the previous one is at bottom. I do not think the old one was very good; it is an illustration of the contours of a human brain with a random circuit board overlaid on it. What circuit board? We don't know. It looks like there is supposed to be a pad for a CPU in the middle... and there is part of a ball grid array or something there... but there is also a gigantic randomly-shaped splotch of copper there, what is that for? I am confident that this is not an actual PCB, nor is it a plausible design for one, and I object to illustrating articles about artificial intelligence with a ridiculously fake image.

Conversely, I think that an image actually created by a neural network at least has some form of relation to the subject matter (and it is quite a bit more abstract, so there are not objectively incorrect elements). jp×g 14:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the improvement, JPxG! I always thought the previous image was at least whimsical, but I couldn't think of anything better myself. Felix QW (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the brain-shape with electric circuits is misleading. Beyond that, the caption contained advertising (I've removed that).

If we distinguish AI (telelogical, the idea of performing human-type tasks) from ML (methodological, like statistics), it should demonstrate a machine performing a "human-type" tasks. Bquast (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least remove the boxed background and add transparency around the brain? The dark square is ugly. It might be better to get a more modern image generator to produce a new image with greater fidelity and a white background that could be transparentized. BlackholeWA (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having just reread WP:Navigation templates, it seems that the image indeed goes against the guidance given there on avoiding decorative images in Infoboxes. On the other hand, I am not sure if that part of the essay still reflects editorial practice, and I have also asked as much at Wikipedia talk:Navigation templates. Felix QW (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I have been WP:BOLD and reverted to the old image for the timebeing. Although I agree the old image is not ideal, and I am not in theory opposed to using an AI-generated image to represent the capabilities of the field, "blue brain" image is extremely ugly, having been generated with a very old image-generation model, being malformed/mishaped, low resolution, unclear in what it is representing, and worst of all being enclosed in an ugly black square as opposed to having a transparent background.

I personally am in favor of having an image, as this is in line with many other navigation infoboxes, although as mentioned by Felix above others may disagree with this. However, I don't think I am being particularly controversial in saying that the boxed image would not fit the bill, and many users have expressed a preference for seeing it be replaced, and my opinion is that it is actively distracting. I think that reverting to the far less obtrusive previous image until a stronger consensus or alternative candidates can be reached here makes sense. BlackholeWA (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackholeWA: Here is the result of about ten minutes of proompting and shooping:

It really doesn't make any sense as a circuit board (why are there no components? why is it just traces? why are the traces so thick? why are there so many vias? and in a more philosophically involved sense why should a human brain specifically be the representation of intelligence or skill or knowledge?) but it's at least obviously stylized in a way that doesn't distract from the rest of the image. I think this resolves the above issues (better shape, higher resolution, transparent) although when I have more time I can try something more accurate. jp×g 🗯️ 21:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to this image being used, I think it's an improvement on both current options. BlackholeWA (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's alive! template taking a life of its own

This is a general comment on series' templates that I perhaps notice the most with this one (because I spend the most time on related articles). Such templates are added to (new) articles because (new) editors think it is expected. The template is quite large (in terms of pixels) and treats top-level topics (as it should).

The situation I'm thinking about is that small AI-topic articles (e.g. a specific AI model like AlphaDev). It does not seem to me that this large template of high-level topics is of particular added value here.

Of course, this decision was made by the editor that article and beyond the control of the editors of this template.

My question is more, can something be done, e.g.:

clarify at the top of documenation that this should not be added to any AI-related article
maybe make this template smaller

thoughts? Bquast (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The general guidance on navigation templates seems pretty clear to me in that it should only be used on those pages that are linked in the template. Felix QW (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Image generation has improved a lot since last year. I wondered if it would be possible to use a better image with a more recent image generator like Midjourney or DALL-E 3. Since it is used in a lot of articles, any aesthetic improvement has a lot of value. I uploaded an example of image here, in case you like it. It's fine if you don't like it and want to create one yourself, or if you want me to generate new ones with a different prompt. I'll be waiting for feedback. Alenoach (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm generally not convinced that a navbox about an abstract concept such as artificial intelligence should have an image, for my liking this one in particular veers too far on the side of illustrating an artistic rendering of an artificial neural network, rather than somehow representing the field of AI as a whole. The current one is odd enough to hide the workings of the "machine brain" completely rather than suggest interconnected "neurons". Felix QW (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your feedback. Alenoach (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technology section

I suggest to remove the "Technology" section, since it only contains one link, to the article List of programming languages for artificial intelligence. Alenoach (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section, that should simplify the template a bit. Alenoach (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]