User talk:N2e

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jackzhp#September_2020

User:WhoKnows (talk) 22:28, 31 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a draft on the 2025 Minnesota fraud scandal involving Tim Walz: Draft: 2025 Minnesota fraud allegations shane (talk to me if you want!) 23:20, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

also Happy New Year! shane (talk to me if you want!) 23:23, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Endurance (submarine) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 11 § Endurance (submarine) until a consensus is reached. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

I ran across your thread over at the Village Pump.

You seemed to be the only one there who had any clue of the magnitude of what is coming.

Have you read this article?: Accelerating change

Accordingly, diffusion of technology is speeding up. TVs diffused faster than the telephone, PCs spread faster than TV, cellphones were adopted even quicker, with smartphones diffusing with even greater speed than that.

The diffusion of generative AI is surpassing all of those, and this pattern will continue with each successive technology.

The pipeline includes multi-modal models, reasoning engines, iterative agents, and embodied AI. The latter is the application of AI to robots, drones, vehicles, and machines in general to enable them to receive natural language instructions and learn from demonstrations.

You look out your window today, and you see zero robots. In five years, who knows?

Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, predicts that AIs will be able to do his job within the foreseeable future, but before that, perhaps 2026 or 2027, AIs will have advanced sensory perception.

They'll be able to collect their own data in the physical world.

What will Wikipedia be in the midst of all of this?

A memory.

At some point, everybody will be getting their knowledge from an AI that composes it all on the spot at one's command.

For a slight sense of what that will feel like, go to perplexity.ai and tell it to write a book. You pick the subject. It's about 10 times better than it was 2 years ago. And in 2 years it may be 20 to 100 times better than it is today.

Will people even read anymore, or will they prefer the quick videos their AIs can create to show and tell them whatever they want to know on demand?

How long will this progression take?

Faster than most people expect.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   13:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

P.S.: The above assumes friendly AI, hoping we're that lucky.

Yeah, I tried over there to see about serious discussion, but got mostly midwit comments about AIs in general or how Wikipedia is better than xyz. Seemed a poor forum to find serious ppl to discuss the future of Wikipedia generally, given the existence today of so-called AIs, and the undoubted continuation of that technology advance. So I just let it go. (It did, rather obviously in the Pump, have a miniscule audience.)

So cool you find interest in such topics. I had not read the article on Accelerating change, but did read it today; tweaked a couple of things. I've been quite aware of the thesis on accelerating accelerating change since the 1990s, and certainly accept the basic thesis. I have not really taken the time to overview the history of various thinkers/philosophers on the matter, and that article did provide a high-level intro to that. (i actually love the "history of _____ thought" topics on various matters of acquired human knowledge. i even wrote on the topic of the history of economic thought on self-organizing social behavior. ... and how various technology baselines can support whole new avenues/areas for human self-organization. ... which, as I think about it now, is very much a case where AIs, and increasingly capable AIs, will radically (again) facilitate entirely new vectors for human self organization, and outcomes to emerge.)

THanks for the note. N2e (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Here's a philosophical question for you to ponder: "With AIs today being able to produce in seconds subject-based articles and chapters starting to approach Wikipedia quality, what will they be able to do in a year, 2 years, 4 years?"

Asked another way: "Will prompting an AI replace looking things up?"

Another article you might be interested in is recursive self-improvement (RSI). It provides some insight on how computers themselves may contribute to the accelerating acceleration of technology. Even now, RSI is happening, through programmers using AI coding tools. While not autonomous, it's still autocatalytic. The pair (programmer + AI) is the thing that is recursively self-improving. So, one can argue that we are already in the midst of an intelligence explosion.

It isn't a giant leap of logic, based on the vast array of tasks that are currently being automated, or the alarming number abilities that have emerged, to expect that RSI will also be automated or emerge. Computers directing their own learning, or redesigning themselves, or both. While a single computer acquiring RSI qualifies as an intelligence explosion, the fireworks really take off once combined with mass production of components to add to a single entity, or production lines of complete computers also capable of RSI. This can theoretically be decentralized with 3D-printers, and therefore, less likely to contain.

As Wikipedia is included in the training data of virtually all AIs, it might remain part of the legacy. The community and foundation supporting it may fade away over time, but the Wikipedia data set may live on in one form or another inside the computers of the future.

Hopefully, artificial general intelligence (AGI), if or when it does emerge, achieves the better qualities of humankind from the wisdom Wikipedia and the rest of the data set we (the human race) have provided to it.

Keep your fingers crossed.

For the time being, Wikipedia is positioning to remain in the game. In that link's article, which if about the WMF monetizing WP data to help continue funding WP operations, Jimbo Wales was quoted as saying "“You can imagine a world where you can ask the Wikipedia search box a question and it will quote to you from Wikipedia.”

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   01:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of self-organization...

Are you still looking for serious discussion on AI and Wikipedia's future?

I was having trouble finding a venue to talk about this stuff, so I started a discussion over at the Help Project to explore how we could and should be supporting users who try out AI on Wikipedia, with help pages.

I invited everyone I could find involved with AI on Wikipedia, and all the members of the Help Project as well. It has been interesting seeing the meshing of the attitude to protect content from AI hallucinations even if we have to ban AI, with the view that people need guidance on how to use AI apps (chatbots and the like) responsibly that they will be using anyways, into a single discussion.

It's centered around the context of choosing an AI procedure, and then writing a help page on it.

It seems to have hit a nerve.

The opening phase, which we're still on, is brainstorming every activity we can think of that an AI could potentially be used in relation to or on Wikipedia.

In the midst of this is a lot of excited discussion about the dangers of doing this wrong.

The discussion has attracted some editors with a high degree of experience using AI and developing AI tools.

If you are interested, come check it out.

Hope to see you there. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   06:24, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@The Transhumanist:, sure, quite interested in the discussion. Although I start out pessimistic about the probabilities of the discussion staying focused and on the rails given the current state of debate in both AI in general and English Wikipedia bias. I'll try to get over there and have a look. N2e (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

LOL. Focused? We're all over the place. That's half the fun. Lots going on there. Learning. Networking. Tip and technique sharing. Editing (see this new page: Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence resources). Consensus building... There's already general agreement on at least one direction to move forward. Idea generation. And expanding everyone's option awareness. It's a party!    — The Transhumanist   15:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, you called that one right. They did derail it. Now the question is, why didn't I see that one coming? LOL.    — The Transhumanist   01:15, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

A draft you worked on has been moved to article space, and is now titled Outline of astrophysics.

Perhaps you could take a look at it and make improvements.

Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   01:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

That's not the prerogative of the laws.. That is analysis. Psephguru (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

It was a request for information to improve the article; no statement was even made in wikiprose. N2e (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Interbank Information Network has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 12 § Interbank Information Network until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, can't see that that Interbank Information Network is even explicated in that article at the redirect target any longer. So fine by me if that redir disappears. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The redirect United States War against Iran has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 4 § United States War against Iran until a consensus is reached. A1Cafel (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)