Talk:15.ai

RFC on Status of Web Site

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.

---

How should the current status of the 15.ai web site be listed in the infobox?

• A. Under maintenance.
• B. Abandoned.
• C. Omit the Current Status field from the infobox.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Please enter A, B, or C, with a brief statement in the Survey. Please not reply to other editors in the Survey. That is what the Discussion section is for.

Survey

I'd say something like "under maintenance since <date>" to avoid original research. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

(invited by the bot) Leave it out. WP:Ver requires sourcability for whatever is put in there and there is no source in the article for any such characterization. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

However, there is a source for the website being down for maintenance since 2022.

Since this was clearly from DRN, I wonder what its participants have to say and am surprised they have not commented yet. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a source? Where? 2400:79E0:8041:4880:1804:EAEA:346E:9670 (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This throws a wrench in things... the inline citation confused me into thinking it cited the entire sentence. I'm now not sure what we should do. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we can use https://archive.ph/sk2VL as a source. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding DRN. Two of the participants at the DRN have said the conversation went on too long and noted they did not wish to participate in the RfC or continued dispute, one of the editors was indef blocked for a different issue, one of the editors didn't participate in the DRN at all basically, and I have been busy (as my userpage indicates) with school. That should explain why they have not commented. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Abandoned., by a creator who has disappeared entirely from the internet – SJ + 22:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

We'd need a source to say that the creator has disappeared entirely (which isn't true either; their 𝕏 audience has found https://pony.best/ with their byline) Aaron Liu (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected! Abandoned, nonetheless. That's not a permanent state, it can be revised if that ever changes. – SJ + 03:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• C, because there is no requirement to have the website current status listed in the infobox. Second Choice B. I find the argument of using an archive from the website as under maintenance from 2022 as a source to be uncompelling. I could equally point to the https://pony.best// Credits page, a more recent page, which lists 15.ai as "Stuff I've worked on", past tense with a link to the Wikipedia article, to indicate the project is abandoned, and it'd probably be equally dubious, no? I mean, it isn't listed as "Currently Working" or "Current Projects", it is quite plainly past tense. Anyways, I don't realistically believe that would be an appropriate source for the claim, nor do I think a 2 year old "under maintenance" notice is a valid source to say it's under maintenance. At some point the fact that the project is abandoned becomes self-evident, but we don't have any real sources to substantiate its status. Better to just leave it out. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  My original opinion was made under the assumption that a secondary and reliable source claimed the site was down for maintenance since September 2022. Since the assumption has been proven false, I now also support C per Brocade. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• C as there is not a source to support anything else. Other options require original research. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• I feel C. At the moment as this has widespread thoughts in the community we should keep a more neutral term. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 13:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  I second this and would also prefer C. Thought 1915 (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  The entire root of this, in my opinion, seems to be the current status section Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 19:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, how long does the RFC run before the survey's results are applied? Thought 1915 (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  There's no specific timeframe, though 30 days is the general limit. In this case, I think a WP:SNOW close would be appropriate, given the sheer weight of editors in favor of option C after two weeks of discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Especially given how the only (either one or three, depending on whether they're telling the truth in their appeal) editor(s) who were in favor of another option decided to start an ANI thread instead of respond to the RfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• C In the interests of ending edit wars, I think removing this from the Infobox would help this disputed fact from being a flashpoint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• C We don't have a recent reliable source for anything else. Avgeekamfot (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

I wonder if this RfC is still needed. I haven't followed the dispute but it looks to me like it might only exist because a sock-farm was trying to keep option A and with this sock farm now hopefully gone it might be unnecessary. I appreciate one editor is supporting B above while the rest are supporting C and maybe the RfC having started it's too late but it just looks to me like the sort of thing which could have been resolved via normal discussion were it not for the sock farm. Nil Einne (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems the original cause of this entire thing was caused just because of the current status section- It is very disputed between multiple people and many accounts can be created for spamming/reverting the final decision- This dispute has been active for about a month, and it is taking way too long in my opinion Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Even if there is a claim, it is hard to find one that follows reference guidelines- and it also probably isnt WP:NPOV. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

it just looks to me like the sort of thing which could have been resolved via normal discussion were it not for the sock farm. Incidentally, it had actually been resolved normally. The entire reason it became an RfC was because the sockfarm returned and reverted the edits that were decided upon at DRN. Everyone who participated in the DRN case had no problems with the proposed solution that it should be removed from the infobox. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 05:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Past tense

Should the opening sentence of the article refer to the subject in the past tense? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, updated. – SJ + 22:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I should have warned you sooner, but there will likely be one person who will resist and attempt that you make to do such edit. I personally am fine with this decision. Thought 1915 (talk) 18:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

It does seem that user has tied up the talk page for over a month. – SJ + 03:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it should be rephrased to past tense -- that user does seem to be edit warring against the general interest of most people here? Any thoughts? DrawWikiped^(talk) 05:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to mention that this is the fifth (5th) talk page topic regarding this very question, and that each time, a majority of editors seemed to agree with the suggested change. Thought 1915 (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

They are engaged in a very slow, protracted edit-war outside of the one time in October where 3RR was flagrantly violated by both sides. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 18:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why not, so, sure. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Software can exist in the present tense long past its last update, as people continue to use it. Web apps can not. I see no meaningful sense in which this still exists today. I converted the rest of the article to past tense. @RocketKnightX: don't get into a revert war; if you want the project to still be active, convince its authors to bring it back to life. – SJ + 17:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and Im very close to bringing the people who constantly revert against consensus to ANI. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

180., that seems appropriate at this point. – SJ + 03:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh wait, there already is one. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#15.ai_behavioral_issues. 180.129.92.142 (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2024 (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.

15.ai finally responds

https://x.com/fifteenai/status/1865439846744871044 RocketKnightX (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Contested deletion

User:Sirfurboy and User:Pokelego999, I rewrote this article from scratch last night. You can see the edit history to prove it. I even asked the closing admin to not give me the old version of the article because I wanted to do the subject justice. I even asked User:Liz what the proper steps I should take to make sure that I was doing everything correctly. I spent hours writing up a neutral, original version of the article as a draft, submitted it to AfC, and continued to make edits throughout the day. Please reconsider the speedy deletion, because it isn't an unaltered and unimproved version of the article. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 15:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm admittedly not too involved in this discussion, so I'll refrain from saying much, but I have no issues with keeping this article around since it seems to meet bare notability and can be verified as being a new version of the article via the creator's edit history. I'd appreciate an admin verifying the edit histories are different so as to dispel all reasonable doubt. However, I do have concerns about the fact there's an ongoing deletion review for the subject. I'm admittedly unsure as to how it's handled when the article is recreated while the deletion review is ongoing, but I do have concerns it may interfere with the discussion. It's still not grounds for a speedy to my knowledge, but there may be problems there. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That's my mistake. When I was creating the draft, it said that approvals could take up to 8 weeks, so I decided to submit it and continue editing it. I wasn't expecting it to be approved so quickly. But it's definitely not true that what I wrote is an unchanged draft, which was the rationale for this speedy delete. I spent so much time researching and writing this up, and this version of the article has a lot of sources that weren't present in the now-deleted one. The second AfD for the original article was closed as a "delete" due to the sockpuppetry and canvassing, so my new research that was posted after the re-listing was never taken into consideration in the AfD. This version of the article includes all of the new sources that meet reliability and significant coverage. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 16:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I'm posting this as a reference. According to archived discussions on the Teahouse, a good rule of thumb is three independent and reliable sources that demonstrate significant coverage to establish WP:GNG. Here are the major reliable sources that provide significant coverage for the subject:

• [NEW] United Daily News [1]. Reliable as one of the largest and oldest-running newspapers in Taiwan. Listed as one of the three major Chinese-language newspapers in List of newspapers in Taiwan. Significant coverage includes an overview of the technology behind 15.ai, particularly noting its ease of use and limited data, and also discusses how 15.ai works, its features, and the viral videos that have spawned using 15.ai. Over 400 (approximate since the article is written in Chinese) words of coverage.
• Den Fami Nico Gamer [2]. Reliable as listed in WP:VG/RS. Significant coverage includes an overview of the DeepMoji technology used for emotiveness, applications of the voices not restricted to viral videos, and how to use it. Over 400 (approximate since the article is written in Japanese) words of coverage.
• AUTOMATON [3]. While not listed in WP:VG/RS, AUTOMATON is one of the largest and reputable gaming news outlets in Japan, and has been used in multiple GA's like Only Up!, Visions of Mana, and Sprigatito, Floragato, and Meowscarada. Significant coverage includes DeepMoji, a list of characters available on the application, examples of video content users have created with the platform, an overview of the pronunciation capabilities of the model, as well as a mention of how to use ARPAbet strings. Almost 800 (approximate since the article is written in Japanese) words of coverage.
• [NEW] Rionaldi Chandraseta [4]. While the article itself is written on Medium (which is not considered reliable), Medium is only being used as a vessel to host the article itself (similar to how Google Docs can be used to host an article), which is part of a very popular newsletter called Towards Data Science, which has almost 800K followers on social media. Following alone means nothing in determining the reliability of a source, but Rionaldi Chandraseta, the author of the article, is an IEEE-published machine learning specialist who has published papers that are listed on Google Scholar [5]. The newsletter has a solid editorial board [6] that consists of multiple masters and PhD's in machine learning and computer science. Over 1,000 words of English-language coverage detailing every facet of 15.ai, from its capabilities to its underlying research.
• [NEW] Yongqiang Li [7]. Since the article is locked to foreigners without an account, I asked a friend to translate this for me. The article goes into great detail about the technology behind 15.ai and talks about its features, its future, and potential problems. The author is a professor at the Harbin Institute of Technology and has multiple publications listed on Google Scholar [8] and ResearchGate [9].
• Eurogamer [10]. Reliable as listed in WP:VG/RS. While the main focus of the article isn't 15.ai, it goes into detail the controversy and Twitter exchange that happened when Voiceverse NFT misappropriated 15.ai's work. From However, in now-deleted tweets, Voiceverse was found to have boasted about using its tech for the voice of a cartoon character - which was in fact created using 15.ai, a popular non-commercial text-to-speech service. to "Hey @fifteenai we are extremely sorry about this," Voiceverse NFT wrote. "The voice was indeed taken from your platform, which our marketing team used without giving proper credit. Chubbiverse team has no knowledge of this. We will make sure this never happens again.", this is about 300 words of coverage.
• Stevivor [11]. After doing more research, I found that Steven Wright, the author of this article, also writes for Inverse, a solid and well-known technology and gaming publication. In addition, Stevivor is reliable and independent, and it is the most-read independent gaming news network in the Oceanic region.
• Kotaku [12]. While Kotaku is in WP:VG/RS, it also states News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, (the article is from 2021, so it meets this criteria) but also states {{tq|although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance}. It's still debated whether an article from the "Odds and Ends" category is considered "News", and the entry in WP:VG/RS says articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There is no clear consensus to this, but the description for the "Odds and Ends" category is "Odds and Ends - Gaming Reviews, News, Tips and More.". The argument in the previous AfD was that this article did not meet reliability, although it met independence and significant coverage. I personally believe that this article is reliable.
• Game Informer, PC Gamer, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun [13] [14] [15] All three of these sources are found under WP:VG/RS, but there has been a debate whether these three met significant coverage. While they all pass WP:100WORDS, it is not a Wikipedia policy and their significant coverage can be debated.
• NME [16]. WP:RS notes NME is reliable in its expertise, and it has been debated whether gaming is one of their areas of expertise. The Wikipedia article for NME states that this is so, and gaming is listed as one of NME's header sections, but there has been debate whether NME's expertise extends outside of music. Similar coverage to Eurogamer, but with fewer words, but still above the threshhold for WP:100WORDS (which, again, is not Wikipedia policy).
• Andrew Ng [17]. The author, Andrew Ng, is one of the most famous and influential artificial intelligence researchers in the world, with a healthy Google Scholar profile [18] and was included in the Time 100 Most Influential People in AI list in 2023. While 15.ai is mentioned as a blurb and likely does not meet significant coverage, it shows that the subject wasn't a mere curiosity and was under the radar for a large number of prominent figures in AI while the service was active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregariousMadness (talk • contribs) 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

However, some of these have been contested in some form, the arguments for which I personally disagreed with. Think of these sources as you will. I still haven't gone over many of the the sources that are used in the newly written page, but I will continue to do my research and update this.

Yes, I'm aware that this is a contentious article that was submitted to AfD. But the AfD was closed largely due to the misbehaving of new Wikipedia editors, who are likely to be children, which is not surprising given the popularity of the application among younger people. I'm committed to doing this subject justice, and I argue that this subject not only meets the bare minimum of notability, but meets it well-within question. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 17:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

These sources look largely reliable to me. It was a large part of why I accepted the original draft in the first place, since it's rare to see a draft with such good sourcing. I personally believe this meets notability, especially since it's been clarified outright this is much expanded from the deleted article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry for all the trouble. I never meant for all this to happen. I can get carried away at times and I felt a fire light up inside me when I was writing the new article. I really hope this version gets to stay. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Please fill out the missing stuff in the Japanese source citations

@GregariousMadness: Please see the example for a foreign-language reference below. What's needed are the trans-title, language, quote, and trans-quote params

{{cite news 
|last=Vučković 
|first=Branko 
|date=28 September 2013 
|title=Železnice Srbije u sve lošijem stanju
|trans-title=Serbian Rail in Increasingly Worse Condition 
|url=https://www.slobodnaevropa.org/a/zeleznice-srbije-u-sve-losijem-stanju/25120244.html 
|access-date=5 November 2024
|website=Radio Slobodna Evropa |language=sh 
|quote=Koliko je železnica u Srbiji zaostala, najbolje se vidi iz poređenja sa Evropskom unijom, gde se vozovi kreću prosečnom brzinom između 200 i 300 kilometara na sat, dok je prosečna brzina na domaćim prugama 44 kilometra, samo nekoliko kilometara brže od prvog voza koji je saobraćao na tek sagrađenoj pruzi Beograd - Niš u septembru 1884. godine. 
|trans-quote=The extent to which the railway system in Serbia has fallen behind is best illustrated by comparing it with the European Union, where trains travel at an average speed of between 200 and 300 kilometers per hour, while the average speed on domestic tracks is just 44 kilometers, only a few kilometers faster than the first train that operated on the newly constructed Belgrade–Niš line in September 1884.}}

—Alalch E. 12:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Done, thank you! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 13:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Having translated titles is really important, but it would also be very nice and genuinely helps verifiability to have translated relevant quotes. If it needs to be multiple quotes from the same source, cite the same source multiple times each time with a different suitable quote and I might convert the citation method to shortened footnotes. If you determine that any of the Asian sources aren't essential, and the statements are already made verifiable using English-language sources, please remove them. —Alalch E. 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh... I just saw this message after I submitted an edit translating all of the other sources. What should I do? Should I revert my edit? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 13:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No worries, please see Special:Diff/1264103607. Basically, there's no need to use {{efn}} for translations of quotes. —Alalch E. 13:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

In other words, what Japanese text in the reference no. 2 (as of special:permalink/1264103607) supports the statement "15.ai was conceived as a research project by a developer known as "15" during their undergraduate studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and was later implemented following the developer's successful exit from a startup venture." and what is the English translation of that Japanese text. —Alalch E. 13:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I see, I'll get to that in a bit. I'm expanding some other sections but I'll definitely make those edits soon. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 13:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@GregariousMadness: Please check the article out now. This is how it should be because this citation style enables multiple relevant quotes each with its translation, for any given single reference. It's just a start. —Alalch E. 16:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will use this style going forward. Thanks so much for your help! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 02:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking for Twitter videos

Hi! I'm looking for a few videos that had circulated around Twitter around 2021.

• A video of the Heavy from Team Fortress 2 in Home Alone 2 that was broadcast on a news network (it might have been CNN, but I don't remember) Found it. It was indeed CNN, and the transcript of the segment can be found here: [19].
• A video of the Team Fortress 2 voice actors commenting on 15.ai and AI voice cloning technology around 2021. I believe this question was asked to the voice actors at a convention panel (possibly Comic-Con?)
• A video of Nathan Vetterlein, the voice actor of the Scout, reacting to a line generated by 15.ai as the Scout.

If anyone has any clue where I could find these, it would be of much help. Thank you! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 00:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Toolify

Re Special:Diff/1266840008

Toolify articles are obviously WP:RSML. Not a reliable source. I've removed hopefully all content sourced to it. —Alalch E. 13:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll look for more reliable sources to support these statements! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 15:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Strange repetition of content

@GregariousMadness: What are you thinking when you add a sentence like Special:Diff/1266840373 when the exactly same thing is stated up above in the article? I've seen you make such additions to this article before and I've reverted some of them. You're even repeating links. Please see MOS:OVERLINK. But the more significant problem is not overlinking as such, the problem is repetition. —Alalch E. 13:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

My line of thinking was that if someone were to be linked to the specific section of the article (say through the link 15.ai#In fandom culture), a summarizing sentence would be helpful to get the reader up to speed if they hadn't read the earlier sections of the article. Also, it can be pretty hard to keep track of what information has already been stated since sometimes I don't realize what content has been removed by other editors. I've been using the article Among Us as inspiration for formatting and style, and I do believe that there's enough rationale to keep an "In fandom culture" section for the article. I'll be doing more research to support the statements that had been supported by Toolify, but I believe that the other statements can be kept in that section. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 15:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't revert my edit saying "per talk page" when there's nothing like a consensus regarding that edit on the talk page, like you did in Special:Diff/1266859044. In my edit summary (diff) I wrote: this entire section is undue, veers on trivial, and most importantly, it repeats content already in the article; some unique statements can be reincorporated elsewhere. Saying "per talk page" would have meant that there was a consensus to revert my removal, and there wasn't.

The Among Us article has no bearing here. It is not even a relatively recent FA-class article to assert that it contains examples of best editing practices. A GA badge does not mean very much; a GA review is performed by a single reviewer most of the time. You should not primarily be using a single GA as inspiration, but should be guided by best editing practices. Among those is the commonsense convention that articles should not repeat themselves. An encyclopedia article is a standalone work of non-fiction prose. It should be written to function the best for a reader who will read it from start to finish. The article's statements are grouped together according to some organizational scheme and those groups are separated one from another using section headings. Sectioning serves to clarify articles by breaking up text, organize content, and populate the table of contents. We don't recycle the same content to come up with additional sections based on our feeling that an article should include a particular section, for example, because we want to highlight some aspect of the topic. Most of the statements in the "In fandom culture" section were the same or similar to statements made elsewhere in the article, and that section overlapped with the scope of other sections. In some respects the statements were poorly supported by sources. Another, distinct, problem is that too much emphasis on fandom culture, including every detail about the use of 15.ai by fans of this and that, is excessive detail on trivial subjects, and is simply unencyclopedic. While many articles have "In popular culture" sections, they are not as accepted as they used to be (this is applicable to any "In fandom culture" section by extension). MOS:POPCULT says: Cultural aspects of the subject should be included only if they are supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss the subject's cultural impact in some depth. The mere appearance of the subject in a film, song, video game, television show, or the like is insufficient. What you came up with in your "In fandom culture" section fails that to a large extent. The mere use of 15.ai by a given online community of fans does not mean that Wikipedia has to report on that.

There is enough information about 15.ai's use by fans of various stuff in the Features and the Legacy section. —Alalch E. 21:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, got it. Thanks for the comments. Is it okay to put info from the now-deleted section into the current version of the article in appropriate places? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'd like to see how you'd do it, and please think about condensing and not going further than the source in making particular claims. Just to take the first sentence as an example, Scotellaro 2020b doesn't contain "especially popular in the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom" and doesn't contain "50 voices". The sole fact that 15.ai is being written about on that website is only evidence that someone able to make posts on that website finds it interesting. At the same time, the sections "Development, release, and operation" and "Legacy" already discuss how 15.ai was significantly used by the MLP community and there's no need to restate that using specifically the words "especially popular ..." —Alalch E. 21:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand now, thank you so much for the detailed comments. I'll think about it some more! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)