User talk:Fr33kman/deep learning

Thoughts

The issue with this article (and most LLM written articles) is that it does not follow the MOS for article sections. The content itself is okay, but there are no references, so it is essentially original research by the AI. Without knowing which sources were used for its inputs, how do we know that the information is accurate? Griff (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched for citations for the parts that need Rss and will add them shortly. My purpose in doing this exercise is as a proof on concept. Can it be done, can an article started by an AI be saved at all or are they all doomed to fail. I see many problems with this idea and am trying to fix an article to see if it has any place at all in Wikipedia or whether or not we need to have policy in place so we don't have to run an RfD everytime someone creates an article with an AI. Thanks for your comments fr33k man 18:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content itself is not okay, largely.--'Not encyclopedic', would be a good way to describe some (or many) sentences.--When one tries to write a lot of text, about stuff that one seems to not know too much about, then "Deep learning", might not be the best choice of topic.--Not trying to be rude, or 'rain on the parade'. 2001:2020:311:F266:3D4F:7217:9DF1:909 (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Example of something dumbed-down (and arguably "not true")

"for computers to learn from data". 2001:2020:311:F266:BC6F:DE1:2A12:8BA5 (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like the voice of a junior-college 'teacher'?

"deep learning models".--Many people might not know what a model means in this context.--Is it a (physical) object, like a "car model", one might wonder.--The first sentencences of the lead, gives me a feeling that it is a complex article. 2001:2020:311:F266:BC6F:DE1:2A12:8BA5 (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]