Talk:15.ai

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notice[edit]

Can we get a consensus to put an edit notice here on this talk page to hopefully help quell the WP:NOTFORUM and vandalism problem happening here quite a bit? There was a similar edit notice implemented at Talk:SCP Foundation (which also gets a lot of NOTFORUM comments) recently and it can be seen at Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:SCP Foundation. wizzito | say hello! 00:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 65.190.56.180 (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More info needed on Troy Baker scandal[edit]

I wrote some more technical background for the article, but I'm not in the loop with the Troy Baker NFT company scandal that happened in January/February. Can anyone with more information on this topic chime in? Tacotron2 (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can add some paragraphs explaining the events that occurred in greater detail. A number of Voiceverse and co.'s tweets have since been deleted, but fortunately some of the references still have screenshots of the deleted posts. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potential good article nomination[edit]

In preparation for a good article nomination, I am making edits to the article to ensure that it follows the good article criteria. Please post any urgent changes that should be made. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source on the use of 15.ai in pornography[edit]

I'm finding it very difficult to find a reliable source for the following paragraph under the "Fandom content creation" section:

Moreover, the project has been utilized as a creative tool in pornography. For instance, the Pony Zone videos is a series of erotic musical videos that heavily samples 15.ai as the vocals—the creators of such videos make frequent use of salacious emotional contextualizers and punctuation/ARPABET tricks to induce the models to grunt, sigh, and moan convincingly.

While one can find numerous examples of 15.ai being used in the context of Rule 34 with a simple Google search, not a single reliable reference mentions its use case in pornography. In the meantime, I've removed the above excerpt from the main article. Please feel free to re-add the above when a proper source has been identified. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:15.ai/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SirGallantThe4th (talk · contribs) 23:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, and thank you for your GA nomination. I will be reviewing this article using the template below. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Well written throughout, though the "Resistance from voice actors" subsection seems redundant? I suppose it's not exactly the same as the mention of impersonation and fraud above it, but more information included there would be useful.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Looks good. The lead section summarizes the article concisely.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Notes and references look good.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). The other sources look reliable, but there are a few instances of potentially unreliable sources:
  1. the main website itself,
  2. the Twitter account of the subject,
  3. the 4chan link to the preservation project, and
  4. the YongYea Youtube video.

These are generally unreliable because they are self-published sources, but according to Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works, even though non-self-published sources are preferable, self-published sources can be used to support a direct quotation. (1) and (2) are used to corroborate the names of the developer and the model, so I believe this is okay (though obviously it is preferable that a non-self-published source be used, if at all possible). (3) is... iffy. Definitely peculiar to use 4chan as a source, but in this case, it is being used to support a direct quotation. I will give it a pass, though anyone else can veto my assessment if necessary.

As for (4), Youtube is not considered a reliable source (I learned it the hard way, myself) so that citation should be removed entirely, even if the publisher is generally known to be reputable.

The above comments have been resolved by the nominator. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2c. it contains no original research. The phrase "—as is the case with 15.ai—" in the "Copyrighted material in deep learning subsection" should be left out because the citation itself does not say this directly, and instead can be inferred by the reader.

The citation attached to the sentence explaining how the CMU Pronouncing Dictionary reduced the set of phonemes from 50 to 39 doesn't seem to explicitly support it. Is there a better citation that explains these changes explicitly instead of just linking the CMU Pronouncing Dictionary's home page?

The above comments have been resolved by the nominator. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The main topic is addressed.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Good amount of focus. The Troy Baker scandal did seem to delve into the Twitter exchange quite a bit, but considering that they were also the focus of attention in the cited articles, this should be fine.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. WP:EDITORIAL: Remove the word "significantly" in "significantly reducing the required training time". The preface "Although the application costs several thousands of dollars a month to keep up and maintain" is unnecessary, unless you find a reliable source for this.

The above comments have been resolved by the nominator. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. A couple minor disagreements on certain things here and there from a few editors (usually about grammar and word choice), but appears stable for the most part.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Images are tagged correctly. I noticed that the original link to the logo that was uploaded to Commons [1] has been nominated for deletion since April. Is this a problem? If not, ignore this.

15.ai is nearly ready, So please wait a bit longer

6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. The images included are relevant and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. On hold. The article in its current state is close to ready for good article status, but some changes need to be made regarding the citations and neutrality.

All comments above have been resolved and the article is ready for good article status. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick review. I've edited the article to address all of your comments. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by HackerKnownAs (talk). Self-nominated at 03:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Raised to Good Article status within 7 days, long enough, multiple independent sources, I think that the cloning of a voice is pretty interesting to a broad audience. The hook could be shortened a bit, happy for further suggestions. Cardofk (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page issues and additional controversies?[edit]

I find it far too meme-centered, with unnecessary images that don't add much to the article at all. But also, I recall the person who made 15ai being notorious for let's say less-than cordial behavior towards people including their fans (which became even less cordial when said fans became critics because of his treatment), showcased even in some tweets featured/refrenced in the article. He's far from an level-headed person. Although I'm not certain if there's enough to add a seperate section in the reception paragraph. But since tweets seem to be considered proper sources these days I or someone else could look to use those I guess. Pickled Undergarments (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not regard these as issues with the article during my GA review. The tweets you mention are of an exchange between the developer (whose pronouns are unknown) and the company that plagiarized their work, which were also substantiated in the other referenced articles noted with in-line citations - there was not an instance where the tweet was referenced with the ONLY citation being the tweet. It also seems that the exchange was very well received by the fans, so I don’t know where you were getting this idea.
Without proper evidence of your claims, it sounds like you are biased against the developer. Tweets are indeed not proper sources, but articles that have been published in a legitimate outlet containing those Tweets are.
As for the images, I do not believe they are excessive or primarily decorative, which follows the Manual of Style. As of writing this reply, there are only four supplemental images, each of which is relevant to how the subject is used. To say that the article is “meme-centered” is also misleading, as only one subsection of the article focuses on the meme-creation potential of the subject, and most of the article talks about the technical details and background surrounding the subject. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the images three are likely copyrighted and will need to be given a free use rationale. The 15.ai logo has been nominated for deletion at Commons. I have nominated commons:File:GLaDOS.png for deletion at Commons as File:Glados.png at enwiki is copyrighted and has a fair use rationale. File:Screenshot from The Tax Breaks.png has a multitude of copyrighted characters and lacks the plausible deniability argument that the logo has and will probably not stand against a deletion nomination. If I were to make a WP:POINTed edit, I would add File:Screenshot from The Tax Breaks.png to the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic article to illustrate the look of a typical episode using a purportedly CC-BY-SA image and see how fast the image gets deleted.
Hasbro does not pull punches when it comes to their copyrighted characters as evidenced by Fighting is Magic having to be reworked into Them's Fightin' Herds. Even with Lauren Faust herself as character designer, the character designs are notably distinct from the original Mane 6 that were initially planned to be implemented there. 93 (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voiceverse Twitter image[edit]

Instead of a solid blue circle, what if the quoted Tweet section had the Voiceverse icon, so that both quoted Twitter accounts show their image? https://twitter.com/VoiceverseNFT/photo https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1528722372684943360/Gc14JM09_400x400.png Dogman15 (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that Voiceverse owns the copyright of their Twitter icon, but I don't see why it shouldn't be included if Wikipedia allows it to be uploaded. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted material in deep learning section[edit]

This section cites the case of Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. for the proposition (I think) that companies are able to train their AI's with copyrighted material under fair use. An anonymous editor over at WP:RFPP wanted the talk page unprotected so that they could point out that the decision "is entirely misrepresented in the article" [2]. I'm posting this since this page is protected, and frankly because I think the ip has a point. The columnist to whom that section is sourced does not appear to be a lawyer. Perhaps the comment should be credited to him as an opinion rather than listed as the holding of the case? Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 06:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False information[edit]

Why does someone keep lying that 15.ai was closed down for good due to creative differences? Gableruneintfeb88 (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure who the " someone" you're referring to is, but it's been dead for 15+ months. Read the room. The developer never gave actual, direct answers on the underlying technology beyond cool-sounding unverifiable technobabble. What off the shelf tools built the foundation? Tensorflow? Pytorch? We never got that type of answer. Personally, I genuinely believe you were all lied to by very good scam artist. Habanero-tan (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

اني مصطفى 37.236.83.200 (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A movie[edit]

A movie about a boy named Marco 2601:244:4A00:FB0:4094:2387:40DA:9A06 (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My little pony[edit]

Mi pequeño pony 200.68.140.65 (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:15.ai&oldid=1219134302"