This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Artificial intelligence on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Artificial IntelligenceWikipedia:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceTemplate:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
This article has been flagged for the following 4 reasons (A-D) which I address below and modify the article accordingly:
A. ImageNet as an obvious bogus source since it does not verify the "resurgence of AI" portion:
(The 2012 ImageNet competition is widely cited as the watershed moment that ended the last AI winter in the AI research, industry, and tech journalist. Although the website cited is unimpressive, this is a common characteristic of academic projects websites circa 2012 (even for Stanford). ImageNet was one of the world's leading Computer Vision competitions and Fei-Fei Li who created the competition dataset is one of the world's leading AI researchers. It is defunct now because AI models are too performant and have solved both the original and more difficult iterations of ImageNet.
- I'll add this citation to support this for those outside the field or who don't follow AI or know this history.
- tone down word choice by 'resurgence' to 'revived'. It’s difficult to exaggerate the historically unparalleled amount of money, time, and efforts going into this latest AI boom from academia, governments, and industry. This includes software, chips, datacenters and energy infrastructure as well as economic, miliary, and geopolitical alliances, trade, and perhaps a new cold war. Thus, I used ‘resurgence’ for what this latest AI summer has helped touch off and why without going too tangential to this article)
B. filled with dubious phrasing like leading institutions and market leaders.
The companies listed are some of the largest and most well-known in the US healthcare space. Although the tone is different in industry, business, and economic reporting with the 2 words you highlighted, these are simply factual observations.
- I'll add citations filled with a wide variety of metrics to support the claims that each of these institutions is a leading US Healthcare institution. In addition to a variety of links on the web, I’ll add their wiki articles as well showing they are widely recognized sector leaders.
- I see Wiki style guides discourage 'leading’, so I'll substitute the more objective metrics like 'largest' and drop 'market leaders' as redundant puffery
C. doubt that LinkedIn data is a reliable indicator of anything concrete.
LinkedIn is the world's largest professional social network with over 1B users worldwide. It is the leader in terms of connecting employees/employers in the US and other countries (#1 US with 230M and #2 India with 130M users). They most likely have the largest, real-time data analytics on exactly such job trends and demographics. I'm surprised by the lack of authority attributed to LinkedIn as a source.
- I'll add these 2 links to the original LinkedIn report along with another of leading financial reporting source to contextualize this fact for emphasis for those unfamiliar with LinkedIn’s prominence in corporate hiring and professional social media
D. the AI LEAD act has only bee (sic) introduced into the house and has not been made into a law, something the article glosses over.
The article clearly uses the phrase “introduced the AI LEAD” and does not gloss over this fact. This sentence follows the much more significant citation to the US Whitehouse OMB memorandum mandating all US Executive Departments and agencies to appoint a CAIO within 60 days which was a foundational influence. The purpose of the AI LEAD act is to illustrate a more detailed and ambitious plan for incorporating AI leadership far beyond what the OMB memorandum required. The OMB memo was itself was a result of the US Whitehouse Executive Order #11140 the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence which I’ll also note in the article to expand the context and help readers grasp the import of this trend in the US government for AI leadership.
One amendment on in my reply to critique A above that I overlooked in my original reply (and the most salient by Wikipedia guidelines).
Thee CAIO article has an internal link to the Wikipedia article on "AI Winter" that explicitly cites the ImageNet 2012 in the section "Current AI spring (2022–present)":
The successes of the current "AI spring" or "AI boom" are advances in language translation (in particular, Google Translate), image recognition (spurred by the ImageNet training...
I hope this expansive and officially vetted Wikipedia article, along with the sources I cited and my explanation above, assuages your concern that this is a legitimate source and connection to justify the claim made. Thanks - J J2000ai (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another update on my reply to critique D above that failed to directly address your concern:
The original article sentence was: "On April 19, 2024, Senator Gerry Connolly (D-VA) introduced the AI LEAD Act, which would expand upon hiring AI leadership beyond the EO #11140 and OMB memorandum." The future conditional future verb phrase "would expand" conveys that the AI LEAD Act is not yet passed legislation and reinforces the earlier verb "introduced".
To ensure readers aren't misled about the pending status of the AI LEAD Act, I've revised this entire paragraph to 1. show the context of why AI LEAD Act is even mentioned here, 2. it's current status in committee as of mid-October 2024, and 3. how it relates to broader concerns with AI legislation in general and AI leadership in particular (with a citation to many dozens of pending/passed AI bills around the country at the state level) - Thanks, J
You've somehow made the article worse that it was originally. Regarding my criticism of the AI boom, the correct response would have been to find a source that explicitly links the rise of CAIOs to the resurgence in AI following the ImageNet competition and not saying stuff like Although the website cited is unimpressive, this is a common characteristic of academic projects websites circa 2012 (even for Stanford).
Regarding the rest, you are still not using encyclopedic language, sentences like This highlights the growing acknowledgement of the strategic and competitive importance of integrating AI into business operations. don't convey anything meaningful to the reader and are just fluffery. Using terms like leading organizations and framings like In healthcare alone, this includes largest organizations including [random list of companies], This mandate has been met with alacrity and it reflects widespread concern around AI legislation at both the federal and state levels with a focus on AI leadership in government. are examples of not how to write a encyclopedia article especially when the sources do not properly support the actual text.
I would suggest you take a step back and read some good articles to get a feel for the general tone in which you should write Wikipedia articles and then come back and take a stab at this one. I think my concerns here are still very much warranted and this article needs a rewrite to have it's tags removed. Sohom (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
