Talk:Human-centered AI

Peer Review

Since no guidance has been provided to suggest what the limits of your contribution are, I will assume you have contributed the entire article.

It is somewhat difficult to evaluate whether this article discusses the issue with "sufficient" breadth or is well-aligned with a general academic discussion. The article is divided into what seem like natural modes for discussion of the issue. I worry though that the level of effective in-article theorizing (this is all I can conclude is being done with the present significant gaps in citation) limit how well the article can function as a base for future discussion. Human-centered AI seems like an issue which should be at least broadly self-explanatory. Some discussion of how to think about it is necessary but not I think at the level of granularity which you provide. Where ideas presented in Wikipedia articles are not especially technical, the article becomes free to focus instead on connecting disparate ideas. With this in mind, it was disappointing to see entire sections of the article entirely devoid of external hyperlinks.

As you continue to develop this article, in addition to introducing further citation (this is obvious but I would remiss not pointing it out at least once), I think it would be great to find the article drawing more connections to external pages and ideas over further discussion of the central theme. This is especially the case for the central "Augmentation and Automation" section where it should be straightforward to come up with many concrete examples of human-centered AI in action.

Despite my (maybe overly) blunt tone, I think this is a really great foundation for an article. There is clearly a lot of thinking on the issue present in what is already; it would just be great if the article focused less on extensive discussion of the issue and more on orienting itself relative to other adjacent ideas. Cavanbgon (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Peer Review

Thanks for your work! This article introduces some important aspects of human-centered AI. While it covers a variety of topics, more secondary sources are in need to lay the basis for discussions around your contributions. For example, the statement "to this end, organizations and initiatives that take a human-centered approach to AI development focus on frameworks that encourage collaboration between humans and artificial intelligence systems to build towards even greater progress" is a bit too general and can be more concise with less phrasing like "towards even greater progress." Instead, adding specific examples of who said what would be valuable. --Ukiriz (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Peer Review (Jo)

I'm surprised HCI isn't an existing page, so this is really great that you're doing it! Berkeley also has a big HCI prescence. It would also be helpful to refer to some of the important papers in this field as it is quite large in academia. I liked the early history part, but HCI as a field also has a distinct history in the past ten years, so it would be helpful to include some of the most important papers in this field. Links with AI Safety is worth mentioning. Additionally, the HCI page might be interesting to refer to.

JoNeedsSleep (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Computation, Culture, and Society

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 March 2025 and 31 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wsrnderer (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Meerad247 (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)