Talk:Artificial intelligence/Bellagio 2024: Difference between revisions

This is a nice paper on source reliability I found via one of the local attendees. A composite reading list might be a nice addendum.

To what extent did this help identify groups interested in pursuing or supporting these various research directions? Thinking of the EU and individual university groups as well as foundations.

Tools for creation and curation seem to me worth more than 1/8 of AI-related research. How can we [all] do more of this? Are there perceived bottlenecks to supporting and expanding that work? –SJ talk  22:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

hey Sj :) I know Chris also prepared an informal reading list prior to the event, I wonder if he'd be open to sharing it here.

Chris and Leila did most of the work to identify and invite participants, so they'll be in a better place to follow up on specifics about how they reached out, but I'll just say that the original group was just the start; there was a whole session during the event dedicated to identifying who else might be interested or should be involved. Posting the early draft here on Meta (literally during the event) is also a way for us to give this effort more visibility and attention before anything is decided.

On your last point, I want to emphasize that this isn't the research agenda for the Foundation, but for the larger group and research community; some of those institutions have research priorities and expertises that, while useful to the field, aren't primarily focused on our specific needs as the Wikimedia movement.

Hope this helps! Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Guillaume :) Yes, my last comment was directed at our larger community interested in the implications of AI for the knowledge commons. –SJ talk  18:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Re last point: we need to reduce entry barriers for such research. Increased transparency responsibilities for training data should help. Nemo 12:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply