From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
|
 |
|||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
|
*”’Weak keep”’ the nom makes a case that the sources are not necessarily independent enough for establishing [[WP:SIGCOV]] from non-primary sources. [[User:Iljhgtn|Iljhgtn]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Editors’ pronouns|”they/them”]] · [[User talk:Iljhgtn|talk]])</small> 19:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC) |
*”’Weak keep”’ the nom makes a case that the sources are not necessarily independent enough for establishing [[WP:SIGCOV]] from non-primary sources. [[User:Iljhgtn|Iljhgtn]] <small>([[Wikipedia:Editors’ pronouns|”they/them”]] · [[User talk:Iljhgtn|talk]])</small> 19:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC) |
||
|
*”’Keep”’ – I think that the quoting as a expert on AI philosophy is sufficient (the Berkman Klein center talk at Harvard is quite significant). Agree with others that it’s not an overwhelming keep but enough here. — [[User:Mscuthbert|Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert]] <small>[[User_talk:Mscuthbert|(talk)]]</small> 02:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC) |
*”’Keep”’ – I think that the quoting as a expert on AI philosophy is sufficient (the Berkman Klein center talk at Harvard is quite significant). Agree with others that it’s not an overwhelming keep but enough here. — [[User:Mscuthbert|Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert]] <small>[[User_talk:Mscuthbert|(talk)]]</small> 02:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC) |
||
|
*”’Keep”’ as the subject meets GNG and meets [[WP:42]]. [[User:DaniloDaysOfOurLives|DaniloDaysOfOurLives]] ([[User talk:DaniloDaysOfOurLives|talk]]) 05:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 05:16, 3 February 2026
- Amanda Askell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
From WP:New pages patrol. I had a discussion with page contributors about notability. The article is improved but I still remain unconvinced that the subject is notable. The coverage seems based on the subject’s work with Claude (language model) and not on the biography of the subject. The sources:
- 80,000 hours podcast interview is not a reliable source, and it’s an primary source interview
- links to academic institutions the subject attended: the sources are not independent
- RS about Claude that quote Askell and do not have significant coverage: “Language models might be able to self-correct biases—if you ask them”, MIT, Ars Technica
- Vox and Time: primary source interview + not significant coverage. It’s about Claude, not Askell.
The second question is whether the subject meets the notability guidelines for academics. I don’t think so; I gauge that the LLM papers are significant, but the subject is also one of many authors and reliable sources are not referring to the subject in that way.
I would support a Redirect to Claude (language model)#Constitutional AI and merging in any content there. —🌊PacificDepths (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep. Askell is a senior figure at Anthropic who pioneered Constitutional AI and has been primarily responsible for shaping Claude’s personality and values. I would disagree with the characterization that the Time article is ‘about Claude, not Askell’—while Claude is certainly central, the piece focuses substantially on Askell’s work: ‘Askell—a trained philosopher whose unique role within Anthropic is crafting the personality of Claude… Askell is describing the principles she used to craft Claude’s new “constitution”…’ and so on. Concerning the links to academic institutions, they are used to document basic facts such as where the subject studied; if they are problematic, I think we can find alternatives (though I haven’t looked). I do agree the current sources don’t establish Askell’s notability as an academic, though. Sir Paul (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Keep The Time coverage is maybe enough for WP:GNG alone. That interviews do not confer GNG is disputed, I think in this case at least the 80,000 Hours interviews help notability under GNG. WP:NPROF is probably met by the GPT-3-Paper alone as it has over 60,000 citations, Askell was one of many authors, but it is one of the most important papers in AI and NPROF does not exclude disciplines which have many co-authors for papers.WatkynBassett (talk)
