Talk:Machine Intelligence Research Institute/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Request for comment on NPOV and sourcing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The points of dispute are: (a) whether to remove the statement that Musk "had previously endorsed Bostrom's arguments,[11][12]" (b) whether to preserve the NPOV maintenance tag, (c) whether to preserve the primary source maintenance tag, and (d) whether the language is too technical. K.Bog 05:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note -- the page as it stood when this RfC launched, was like this. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Your cites are bad and fail to check out, or turn out to be first-person assertions rather than the third-party verified claims they turn out to be, as I just noted above. This does not bode well. The article may need to be reconstructed from the ground up purely from verifiable and verified third-party RSes - not primary sources, not sources linked to MIRI, not sources making claims about themselves. Only then should we see about seasoning it with permissible primary sourcing and so on - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Yes remove that and all the other WP:OFFTOPIC fancruft about the broader issues that have been larded in here. Yes, remove the content that is commenting on or grabbing some random bit out of low quality primary sources like conference papers. The primary sources could be in the page as a list of publications of the like, perhaps, but they should not be used to generate so much of the content, if any. The concern about "technical" was a small part of the much larger concern about fancruft raised by Zubin12 when the page looked like this, as Zubin12 explained above in the section Large amounts of Bias present Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
• Note that both of the above editors are involved in the dispute as well as me. The use of sources is in line with Wikipedia policy as well as standard practice on academic articles such as (for an arbitrary example) Kantian ethics, a "good article", where primary published sources are common. Papers in conferences are as good or better than journal papers for computer science . I leave it to the reader to see if anything is too technical, "fancruft", "off-topic", and so on. Some of the sources may have ended up being misrepresented in the constant hacking and churn as every bit of this article gets fought over and some of the sources get removed, but they are generally well used as far as I can tell. The old version is here: K.Bog 16:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It turns out that disagreeing with you doesn't disqualify others from comment. The article is presently bad - David Gerard (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I didn't state that disagreement with me disqualified others from commenting: I stated that the above comments came from people who are a part of the dispute, to indicate to readers that they are not coming through the RFC process. K.Bog 00:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

My view on this topic should be obvious, The tag's should be preserved for the reasons I articulated in the earlier, The musk references should be removed and the reliance on primary sources create both stylistic and content problems. Zubin12 (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Remove the cruft unless and until supported by reliable, independent sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment, can you take a look at the research section in the latest revision [] and describe if it has insufficient sourcing? K.Bog 08:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Nope. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, No, Yes, No (a) yes, remove that bit seems good, no need to go into history of responses; (b) no, do not preserve the NPOV - either it is validly portraying primary cites from them or it is an NPOV violation of slanted coverage, not both; (c) yes, do preserve the refimprove tag, calling for additional independent sources; and (d) no, the language is not too technical, and actually to me it seems almost like the research section is retracing 19th century philosophy and theology. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

*Comment - I just got called here by Legobot, it looks like this RfC is redundant due to changes to the article - there is no reference to Musk in the article (except for his inclusion in the list of 'People'), there are no maintenance tags, and there's no obviously over-technical language. Suggest closing this RfC to avoid wasting people's time if the discussion has moved on. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• • User:Girth Summit, the person wanting the content as it stood when this was opened, is awaiting the outcome of this RfC. That person believes that the something along the lines of the content when the RfC opened (see diff in the first bullet above) was better WP content. Per their note below, here, they are awaiting the outcome of this RfC. They are not edit warring which is happy, but the input from this RfC is very much needed. Jytdog (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Understood - apologies, I confess I didn't read through the other comments - I just read the RfC, and then the article, which no longer includes the stuff the RfC was on. I'll read through the rest of the discussion properly before commenting again. Thanks for explaining. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Notes

• This is not an RfC about policy; I have removed that tag from the RfC because per WP:RFCST that The "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply them to a specific case. The same applies to "style", "WikiProject", and the other non-article categories. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Given the radical changes in the page is the RFC not a bit reduant at this point ?Zubin12 (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that folks who preferred the prior version have really consented; i think they are being patient to see what the RfC brings. Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Irrelevant promotion of Yudkowsky in first sentence?

An anonymous editor removed what he termed "fluff" regarding the first sentence, which included (regarding Yudkowsky) "who was mostly self-educated and had been involved in the Extropian group,"- I'm inclined to agree that this is "fluff"; indeed, it seems to veer into promotion of the individual in question. I've reverted the edit in question so that this content is removed. I'm open to the idea that either of these bits of biographical information are relevant to this particular article, but frankly, this seems far-fetched. It's enough to mention his name in the lead, along with the brief relevant historical information in the first section (which seems perfectly appropriate). Also I think it's crucially important to point out that articles about organizations and individuals as contentious as this one are especially at risk of preferential editing by fans of the personalities and ideas involved. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree, this might belongs to Yudkowsky's BLP page or in a relevant context in this article, if this piece of information is essential to encyclopedic content about MIRI, but not otherwise. --Btcgeek (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

GiveWell and OpenPhil evaluations

As of two days ago, the article ended with this section:

In 2016 GiveWell, a charity assessment organization based on the effective altruism concept, did an extensive review of MIRI's research papers, and concluded that "MIRI has made relatively limited progress on the Agent Foundations research agenda so far, and this research agenda has little potential to decrease potential risks from advanced AI in comparison with other research directions that we would consider supporting".

I added the following section:

Subsequently the Open Philanthropy Project, a charity evaluator spun off from Givewell, evaluated MIRI more positively in 2017. They awarded MIRI a grant for $3.75m, supporting roughly half MIRI's budget. While acknowledging that MIRI was very hard to evaluate, they wrote that "The case for the statement “MIRI’s research has a nontrivial chance of turning out to be extremely valuable (when taking into account how different it is from other research on AI safety)” appears much more robust than it did before".

The second section seems to me to be just as relevant as the first - they both concern evaluations by (essentially) the same organisation, one year apart. Perhaps a slight claim could be made that the second one is slightly more relevant, as it is more recent.

David Gerald reverted my edit, citing primary sourcing. However, if true this would disqualify both paragraphs, as both use basically the same source. I think both contain useful information, so would prefer both to stay, rather than neither. Furthermore, according to USEPRIMARY, "Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation." When I reverted him and pointed this out, David reverted my edit for a second time, citing "rv promotional edit". I'm not sure what exactly he means by this. I haven't been paid by MIRI, for example. It's true that the second paragraph paints MIRI in a slightly better light than the first one, but this is because the opinion of the charity assessment organization improved. Presumably it is not the case that adding any positive content at all is forbidden?

As such I am going to re-add the section, though I welcome David's comments. 69.141.26.148 (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The wording seems misleading to me based on the source. The first part of the quote, "While the balance of our technical advisors’ opinions and arguments still leaves us skeptical of the value of MIRI’s research..." is not included. It seems that a note regarding the fact that Open Philanthropy Project funded MIRI is worth including, but the language used above is unnecessarily promotional. The primary source quoted seems to be quite nuanced. The addition either needs to add that nuance, or just make a note of the facts, i.e. they're granting $3.75 million over 3 years. Although a secondary source would be nice, it is understandable that it might be hard to produce. As such, a promotional edit doesn't necessarily mean a COI. For articles like these, it is important to observe WP:NPOV. --Btcgeek (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

How about something like the following? I think the sentence flow is a little more awkward now, but it captures the additional section you pointed to. 69.141.26.148 (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Subsequently the Open Philanthropy Project, a charity evaluator spun off from Givewell, evaluated MIRI more positively in 2017. They awarded MIRI a grant for $3.75m, supporting roughly half MIRI's budget, writing that "[w]hile the balance of our technical advisors’ opinions and arguments still leaves us skeptical of the value of MIRI’s research, the case for the statement “MIRI’s research has a nontrivial chance of turning out to be extremely valuable (when taking into account how different it is from other research on AI safety)” appears much more robust than it did before".

I suggest removing the "evaluated MIRI more positively in 2017" part. The source doesn't actually say that. They say they remain skeptical, but there are these 2 reasons why they increased their funding. It would also be nice to note that the grant of $3.75m is over 3 years - as it reads now, it seems like a one-time grant, but it isn't. Here's a slight edit of what David Gerard noted above as my suggestion - --Btcgeek (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Subsequently the Open Philanthropy Project, a charity evaluator spun off from Givewell, awarded MIRI a grant for $3.75m over 3 years, supporting roughly half MIRI's budget, writing that "[w]hile the balance of our technical advisors’ opinions and arguments still leaves us skeptical of the value of MIRI’s research, the case for the statement “MIRI’s research has a nontrivial chance of turning out to be extremely valuable (when taking into account how different it is from other research on AI safety)” appears much more robust than it did before".

Seems not unreasonable to me. I'll add it to the article. Thanks! 69.141.26.148 (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree - you still don't have any reliable third-party sourcing that anyone in the real world has even noticed this. Please find a third-party Reliable Source, not a self-source. Surely this isn't hard, if this is worth even noting here. Else it's just promotional - David Gerard (talk) 06:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

David Gerard, I agree that it should have a third-party source. However, the preceding information about the Open Philanthropy Project, which you seem to wish to keep in, is also a primary source. I suggest that either both are included (since they are simply coverage from the same source, a year apart), a combination of the two is kept in, or neither is kept in. Gbear605 (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I would remove both, if there's no evidence of third-party coverage in reliable sources. Is there? - David Gerard (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not support its removal. WP:PRIMARY mentions cases where primary sources can be used. There is no requirement in Wikipedia per se that everything needs a secondary source. The use here of primary source seems to have been done carefully and free of interpretation, which generally requires a secondary source. I don't support the entire deletion of material that seemed to add value to the article, giving a context of the work done by this organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btcgeek (talk • contribs) 21:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You're still supplying absolutely no evidence that this is in any way a noteworthy fact, and that putting it here would be anything functionally other than advertising. Let me repeat again: Do you have third-party coverage in Reliable Sources? This is a pretty simple question, with a yes or no answer - David Gerard (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:PRIMARY to understand how primary sources are used in Wikipedia, as mentioned to you previously.--Btcgeek (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

So that'll be "no, I have no evidence that any third party anywhere has noted this at all"? Then it's just promotional fluff about MIRI - David Gerard (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You're causing disruptive edits to the article without seeking consensus. I've provided you with the right Wikipedia policies to go through already regarding primary sources. The material you deleted was relevant to the article and accurate based on the sources. It didn't show MIRI in the best light, but that's ok and not the purpose of the Wikipedia article. Things like funding sources and independent evaluations are very important for projects that seem "out there" as there is potential for misrepresentation and fluff. Wikipedia tries to provide a holistic view of the organization, not just things that are promotional in nature. You still haven't provided any reason for the removal of this material other than saying you couldn't find secondary sources. It is pretty obvious that the material you removed ins't "promotional fluff" and is in fact the opposite - citing questions about their research and healthy skepticism that you somehow want to keep out of the article. Do you have a COI here? --Btcgeek (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

David Gerard is an admin for RationalWiki, which has a one-sided negative view toward MIRI, which can be seen in its pages on Eliezer Yudkowsky and LessWrong. He seems to very much not be a neutral party on this issue. Gbear605 (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This sort of thing is normally considered a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Rather than attempting personal attacks upon other Wikipedia editors, I urge you to address the sourcing problems. In particular - do you have third-party reliable source coverage? If you can bring such, it will be a slam-dunk argument in favour of keeping the material - David Gerard (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

"You're causing disruptive edits to the article without seeking consensus." I am seeking consensus, which is why I'm here. But - and this is important - a talk page can't agree on its own to contradict fundamental sourcing rules of Wikipedia.

The reason for the removal is what I've said more than a few times - it's entirely self-sourced puffery, which appears to have zero third-party reliable sources coverage. I've said this a number of times; your claim "You still haven't provided any reason" is clearly factually false, and it's an assertion you should reread this page before making.

Do you have third-party, verifiable, reliable source coverage for the claim? Yes or no? This is a simple question, and you've yet to answer it. I must note yet again - if you can find such coverage, it will be a slam dunk case for it to be included in the article - David Gerard (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This is what you've deleted from the article in your last deletion: "In 2016 GiveWell, a charity assessment organization based on the effective altruism concept, did an extensive review of MIRI's research papers, and concluded that "MIRI has made relatively limited progress on the Agent Foundations research agenda so far, and this research agenda has little potential to decrease potential risks from advanced AI in comparison with other research directions that we would consider supporting". Please explain how this is "self-sourced puffery". To me, the content seems clearly not self-sourced and clearly not puffery. --Btcgeek (talk) 04:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Citing an organisation about claims the organisation is making is primary sourcing. That's what the term means.

Do you have third-party, verifiable, reliable source coverage for the claim? Yes or no? This is a simple question, and you've yet to answer it. - David Gerard (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. First, confirm that "puffery" is no longer your concern, and that the material should not have been removed for reasons of puffery/self-promotion. Second, the sources that you removed seemed to follow all the guidelines of third-party verifiable and reliable sources that Wikipedia needs. The source was about GiveWell/Open Philanthropy writing about MIRI, and not MIRI writing about MIRI, so clearly it isn't a first party source. The material from the source is easily verifiable. GiveWell/Open Philanthropy is a fairly reliable source in my opinion. Now that we've broken down your concerns, which of these is exactly your concern?

1. An article about MIRI citing a GiveWell/Open Philanthropy source is primary source because you believe this is PR material put out by MIRI and not actually attributable to GiveWell/Open Philanthropy.

2. You're unable to verify that the quote that was removed from the article cannot be verified to belong to the source.

3. You believe GiveWell isn't a reliable source on Wikipedia and should be added to unreliable sources list on Wikipedia (provide your reasoning if this is the case).

The way the source works in this instance is similar to how we use sources in Wikipedia say to cite the Alexa rank of a website, or ranking lists from sources (e.g. list of countries by GDP say). Let's try to resolve this by laying out your concerns and addressing them specifically. --Btcgeek (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

You're still evading the question! Do you have third-party, verifiable, reliable source coverage for the claim? Yes or no? This is a simple question. Please answer it before you throw out other questions that aren't this question - David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Why are you asking the same question so many times without reading my replies? To reiterate, the source you deleted is a. third-party, verifiable, reliable source. First, you claimed the source was puffery. Then you implicitly backed off that claim which you clearly knew was not true after I pointed this out to you. Then you claimed it's somehow first-party when I have clearly told you several times now that it's not a primary source since the source is from GiveWell/Open Philanthropy and the article is about MIRI. Then you're somehow claiming this isn't verifiable and/or not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Before we go any further please answer my questions above without further evasion. If you think the source that you deleted is a primary source, for example, explain how a GiveWell/Open Philanthropy source is a primary source for an article on MIRI. --Btcgeek (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

You're citing the claim to one of the organisations directly involved in the claim - that's a primary source. That's what the words mean. It is not a Wikipedia-meaning Reliable Source - an independent third-party source on the claim. You're making completely incorrect claims about the quality of your source - David Gerard (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I am withdrawing from this conversation. It doesn't seem like you're willing to do the right thing even when I've given you all the evidence and examples, and you continue to grossly misrepresent the sources that you deleted from the article. --Btcgeek (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

And if the fact hasn't been noted anywhere, it's not notable. Has any third-party RS even mentioned it? Surely this is not a high bar - David Gerard (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

The notability guidelines apply to whole articles, not contents of articles (see WP:NNC), and it is of obvious interest how an organisation is financed. The question here should be reliability of sources. — Charles Stewart (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It is worth noting that (i) MIRI publishes audited accounts, and (ii) that since potential donors might be swayed by the fact of and reasoning behind the donation, claiming the donation took place when it did not would be fraudulent. We could simply ask the auditor to confirm that the donation took place. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

References