Talk:The Age of Intelligent Machines

See Also

Why is there a See Also for Simulated reality: the idea that we're living in a simulation. Is this a big part of the book? Seems out of place, unless we are going to pile on a whole bunch of other See Also pages. Silas Ropac (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay I removed it. Please let me know if it should could back. I could imagine a new See Also section which a bunch of interesting links, but this just have "simulated reality" and nothing else was misleading. Silas Ropac (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Documentary

This seems odd "The Age Of Intelligent Machines is the title of an artificial intelligence documentary (1987) and book (1990)" Is this article about the book or the documentary? If both, we need to talk about the documentary somewhere. If just the book, we can ax the part about the documentary. Or maybe note it somewhere "BTW there is a also a documentary by the same name" but not put it in the lead like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silas Ropac (talk • contribs) 04:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed this from the lead. Might be nice to add somewhere else in the article. Not much available about the documentary. I read it was a ~30 minute "museum" film commissioned by Kurzweil. Probably not notable enough for its own article. Silas Ropac (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Content

Content section could use more content. I used information/quotes from the reviews articles so far. There is way too much to summarize the whole book, but maybe highlight something key like his discussion of the Turing Test? Silas Ropac (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I summarized chapter one. Silas Ropac (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Summary is now up to the end of chapter 3. Silas Ropac (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I added chapter 4, skipped over 5 and 6 as mostly history and didn't feel it added a lot to summarize them, then added 7. Silas Ropac (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I summarized the rest of the book. I did not summarize any of the essays though, not sure if it would just be clutter or not, TBD. Silas Ropac (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Re-assessment (Stub to C-class)

As requested I have re-assessed the article to reflect the recent work done. I have assessed it as C-class because, while it does have reasonably well-written and well-organized content, there are two sections "Background" and "Essays" that do not provide citations indicating where this content is coming from. I also suggest switching the section name from "Essays" to "Style" so that it can be more comprehensive in discussing how the information was delivered (e.g. essays, non-fiction genre, academic vs. popular science, etc.). maclean (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I added citations to the Background, that was an oversight. I added one to the Essays section, it's just to the table of contents because that is where the list of essayists comes from. I will look into renaming and expanding the Essay section. Hard to think of what to say exactly on first blush. Silas Ropac (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)