Jump to content

Talk:15.ai/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Did you know nomination

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)

(
)

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

  • 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)

Concerns about this article.

RESOLVED
I'm closing this discussion because it is no longer needed. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

I have significant concerns about the fact that the 4chan archive linked to reference 15.ai's involvement with the Pony Preservation Project contains several mentions about editing the 15.ai article as seen [1] here. You can even pinpoint exact edits which are being made by the timestamps, such as [2] and Special:Diff/1073079627.

For comparisons sake, the article was released from draft status Special:Diff/1072335677 on the 17th, which is mentioned on the 4chan archive [3]. However, during the drafting process a comment was left that read A large portion of the sources used are not reliable, notably The Batch, which appears to be the personal blog of Andrew Ng. Despite that, the vanished user re-inserts Andrew Ng's The Batch as a source in a erroneously flagged minor edit Special:Diff/1074150423.

I find it equally strange that a conversation about potential COI editing by what appeared to be WP:SPA accounts was completely scrubbed Special:Diff/1090462519 by an IP Editor with the notation of "cleanup", after the above user vanished, after the same IP Editor had changed the "Start Classes" to "B Class" in an edit that carried no summary.

I'm really scratching my head trying to figure out how this isn't COI-impacted to have the Pony Preservation Project folks editing an article about 15.ai that says the Pony Preservation Project was inspired by 15.ai to include mentions of the Pony Preservation Project, or, you know, coordinating what seems to be a weird attempt to fabricate sources as seen here [4] Hey GeekBrony and BGM, could you write up somewhere (on a personal blog or something, like Twitter) how you got the 15.ai models to moan and grunt in the Pony Zone videos? I need a citation for the claim on Wiki and you guys are the only ones who can substiantiate this.

Especially when, y'know, the PPP Folks say >Do you have a Code of Conduct? Of course: 15.ai/code their Code of Conduct is the 15.ai Code of Conduct??? Brocade River Poems (She/They) 14:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

SPA Activity

I have discovered further problems with the way things have transpired around this article. I surveyed the discussions that took place at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/15.ai in the past and have come to find that multiple keep votes which were wholly unscrutinized appeared to be from WP:SPA Special:Diff/1135933989, Special:Diff/1135224026, Special:Diff/1134483927, Special:Diff/1134457478 whose activity began, and seemingly ended, with their voting Keep or who otherwise attempted to have other AI Articles deleted and then ended their activity with a Keep on 15.ai

More than that, though, a number of editors cited the GA Status of the article as reason for why it should be kept. However, the editor who assigned GA Status to the article approved another article that contained problems for GA Status. Special:Diff/1093148912 Special:Diff/1138373104 The GA Reviewer in question seemed to stop activity in August of 2022, and returned only when directed to the AfDSpecial:Diff/1134453033 where they voted keep Special:Diff/1135132021 and then disappeared again. Special:Contributions/SirGallantThe4th. The instructions for reviewing a GA, as I read them, state any uninvolved and registered user with sufficient knowledge and experience with Wikipedia may review the nominated article against the good article criteria. By my count, within the first 25 edits of SirGallantThe4th was this GA review in June 2022, from a user created in April 2022. The article was nominated Special:Diff/1092361428 on June 9 2022, by 10 June 2022 User:SirGallantThe4th had taken up the cause of reviewing this article and the now-deleted article that was full of copyright vios, and approved them both as Good Articles on 11 June 2022. The fact that the article was 'good status' was also used to support the DYK nomination Special:Diff/1093418257. Given the blatant off-site activity and WP:SPA WP:Canvassing that seems to have taken place surrounding the articles deletion nomination, I am highly suspicious of the fact that a user with hardly any experience swept in, approved two articles for Good Article Status and then swept out. Moreover, the fact that one of their approved articles is now deleted due to copyright violations raises grave, grave concerns about the competency of the reviewing editor. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 23:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Notability Concerns

I am of a mind to nominate this article for deletion again, because I'm not sure this meets WP:GNG, and I am quite certain that the previous process was manipulated by WP:SPA accounts. Of the arguments that were made in the last deletion, it was stated that because Kotaku, PC Gamer, Game Informer, etc. had covered 15.ai, that it had significant coverage to establish notability. However, a timeline of articles, if you will.

  • Kotaku, Published January 17, 2021 [5]
  • GameInformer, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:54 AM, Directly References the Kotaku article. [6]
  • PC Gamer, January 19, 2021, Directly references the Kotaku article [7]
  • Rock, Paper, Shotgun, Jan. 18, 2021, Directly references the Kotaku article. [8]
  • Automatron, Jan. 19, 2021. Doesn't reference Kotaku. [9]
  • Den-fami Nico Gamer, Jan 18. 2021. References the Kotaku. [10]
All of the other sources utilized throughout this page only refer to 15.ai in trivial mentions or don't mention 15.ai at all and instead discuss the underlying technology behind it. I have located exactly 0 coverage from reliable sources following Jan 17-20, 2021 range where a majority of sources simply regurgitated what Kotaku had put out. Per WP:GAMESOURCES regarding Kotaku, News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance.
Beyond that, the article had WP:SPS. This seems to very clearly fail WP:SUSTAINED. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 05:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
The zero coverage from reliable sources aligns quite well with the bit of difficulty finding a proper source in the unrelated dispute. I would like to see what happens if this article is nominated for deletion. I worry if the translations of the article into other languages would hinder this though. Thought 1915 (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Whether the article has been translated into other languages on other Wikis isn't really overly relevant on ENWiki. From what I can tell, there has been significant outside manipulation on this article, editing by individuals associated with the "Pony Preservation Project", a GA Appraisement that came from an individual who existed on Wikipedia only briefly and who had rated another article as GA only for that article to be deleted for gross copyright violations. The previous COI warning that was on the article was unilaterally deleted, the user who was accused of COI vanished when it was explained why they were being accused of COI, and an anonymous IP arrived, changed all the statuses to B Class, and then expunged all mention of the COI before the GA Nomination. Then, when the article was nominated for deletion, Users with very limited edit history arrived to vote 'Keep' on the article, adding at least 4 votes to the pile. The article's status as "Good", a status it frankly should have never been afforded, was used as justification for Keep votes in the last round of discussion.
On 29 May 2022, the COI Discussion was expunged Special:Diff/1090462519 and the article elevated to B Status Special:Diff/1090462519 by an IP Editor who in one case left no edit summary and who classified the next summary as 'cleanup'. Wikipedia policy generally prohibits editing other people's talk activity, so deleting an entire discussion thread (instead of any sort of archival) is a giant red flag. The IP that did the above activity was blocked for 2 years for abuse. Outside of what appears to be a spree of BLP Vandalism the only thing the IP Editor did was suspiciously erase a discussion about COI editing??? Special:Contributions/216.194.47.139. On 9 June 2022, the article was nominated for GA. What is also strange to me is that an editor that seems concerned with vandalism on this talk page, didn't bat an eye Special:Diff/1090463388 at the fact that an entire discussion topic had been expunged by an IP Editor. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:37, 19 October 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.

Added more citations to verify the text

I noticed the top menu, that the article may contain citations that do not verify the text. I added some more links to help verify the contents. I will move them around some more soon. GregariousMadness (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I added citations for all of the [citation needed] templates. I'll remove that from the top box unless anyone has any objections. GregariousMadness (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi, User:BrocadeRiverPoems! I noticed that you deleted the citations I used for the article. I believe these would be acceptable to keep because ElevenLabs, Speechify, Resemble.ai, and Play.ht are notable leaders in the voice AI space and thus meets the criteria for WP:SPS. Since we already have plenty of reliable sources establishing notability of the subject, I think it's reasonable to use less prominent sources (like blog posts) for additional details - such as the developer being named 15 (which is already mentioned in the AUTOMATON article we're already using) or the high operational costs. Given the number of articles verifying this information, I believe we can apply WP:PSTS and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS to consider them valid secondary and tertiary sources. I believe it's common Wikipedia practice to use high-quality sources for establishing critical claims while using relatively lower-tier but still acceptable sources for non-controversial supplementary details. I'll revert your edits for now and I've removed the TVTropes article (because that one clearly is violation of WP:UGC) but I'd be happy to discuss if others disagree! GregariousMadness (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi,
As I mentioned on your talkpage before I noticed this here, the reason I removed a number of the sources that you added was less because they were blogs but because they seemed to be advertisements and might run afoul of WP:SPONSORED. For instance, [11] is basically intended to discuss 15.ai for the sake of advertising elevenlabs as an alternative. This seems like it is advertising speechify[12], advertising resemble.ai[13], so on and so forth. Removing TVTropes is a good play. If other people disagree and feel that eleven labs, et al are acceptable sources, that's fine by me.
Cheers, Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Your edits are fine. 11labs and Speechify are definitely notable, no problems there. The rest, while not as notable, are still known contributors to AI speech. 2603:9001:953F:74:2D9F:8AA9:B632:7181 (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, my complaint regarding Eleven labs et. all is that they are pieces of advertisement and might run afoul of WP:NOTADVERT. Being known contributors to AI Speech doesn't guarantee their acceptability. Per WP:INDEPENDENT, competitor's website are considered non-independent sources, adding an extra layer of complexity to the WP:EXPERTSPS claim. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 12:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at the RSN regarding my concerns for these sources. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Multiple_Sources_for_15.ai Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality and COI cleanup

I revised the article to address the neutrality and COI notices. I went through several citations and improved neutrality by adding citations for technical claims while avoiding overly relying on tertiary/unreliable sources for claims without a more reputable source, modified some wording, and ensured fair representation of different viewpoints, particularly from voice actors and their concerns.

I think the article now meets Wikipedia's neutrality standards (WP:NPOV) and so I'll remove the tags in the top box. Feel free to make any further edits if I missed anything! GregariousMadness (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Troy Baker / Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal section

This entire section appears to be about some twitter drama that is offtopic on this article. How is the fact some non-notable company plagiarized some voice lines from work that is probably already infringing on copyright worth mentioning on this article? Polygnotus (talk) 04:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

How do you mean? The event wasn’t mere twitter drama and has been documented extensively by independent outlets and primary sources. It clearly meets WP:GNG. 172.56.76.139 (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
GNG is about the notability of topics for articles. That boring twitter drama is only tangentially related to 15.ai. It might be an important part of a potential article about Voiceverse NFT but that company is nonnotable. Polygnotus (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. Not only are WP:EVENT and WP:GNG for the event met, but 15.ai is the subject of plagiarism that is well documented. It isn’t mere tangential relation if the subject is the one getting plagiarized. 172.56.73.140 (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Neither WP:GNG nor WP:EVENT is met for the event, and if that would be the case you could write an article about it. The story is about the fact that someone else potentially infringed on copyright. It is not about 15.ai, which probably also infringed on copyright. Polygnotus (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Then by that logic, the section isn’t relevant on Troy Baker’s article either because of his mere relation to the scandal while someone else was doing the plagiarism, but I don’t think anyone would argue that. 172.56.72.240 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
There are many, many articles written about the event, so that’s just untrue. 172.56.72.240 (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, it should also be removed from the Troy Baker article (or at the very least drastically cut down). Troy, as a business partner, is of course more involved than 15.ai. But not much more. Polygnotus (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Just because there are articles written about the Voiceverse event doesn't necessairly mean it belongs in the 15.ai Wikipedia article. See WP:SENSATIONAL, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:LASTING. All of the many sources that detailed the Troy Baker/Voiceverse scandal occurred in a 3 day range in January. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
The sources actually span a much longer period than just 3 days in January. Looking at the citations in the article, coverage continued through at least January 31st 2022 when Baker discontinued his partnership (covered by The Verge, Tweaktown, and others). See: [14] (January 18), [15] (January 31).
From what I can tell, this wasn't a sensationalized news cycle, as it was covered by a variety of legitimate sources. In addition, it's appropriate for inclusion in this article because it represented a significant moment in 15.ai's history that demonstrated real-world consequences of AI voice technology misuse. The incident contributed to ongoing discussions about voice actor rights, proper attribution of AI-generated content, and commercialization of voice synthesis technology. These are lasting impacts that help readers understand the broader context and implications of 15.ai's development.
That said, if there are concerns about the section's length or detail, consider condensing it while retaining the key points about the plagiarism incident and its significance instead of removing it outright. AristotleOfCyrene (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of HackerKnownAs, see investigation)
Right, and the source from January 31st is used only to support the statement Two weeks later, Baker discontinued his partnership with Voiceverse and doesn't mention 15.ai at all. it was covered by a variety of legitimate. WP:SENSATIONAL does quite literally state Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting, being covered by seemingly reliable outlets doesn't make it inherently not sensationalist. Its relevance to 15.ai is tangential at best. See WP:CSECTION which reads If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then sections and subarticles about them may be justified, but only within the limitations of WP:BLPGROUPS which indicates the controversy should be discussed at Troy Baker or Voicesense, not necessairly at considerable undue length at an article about 15.ai Brocade River Poems (She/They) 04:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
While you're right that the January 31st source focuses on Baker's withdrawal, the earlier coverage (like the NME article) shows that 15.ai wasn't tangential to this controversy - it was central to it as the victim of direct plagiarism. The initial reporting specifically focused on how 15.ai's technology was misappropriated, including technical details about voice line manipulation and verification through 15.ai's log files.
Your citation of WP:CSECTION actually supports including this content in the 15.ai article. The guideline states that sections about controversies are justified when reliable sources provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies. We have exactly that - reliable sources documenting how 15.ai's technology was specifically targeted and misused (NME is considered a reliable source as per [16]). This wasn't just about Baker or Voiceverse - it was about the unauthorized exploitation of 15.ai's platform.
WP:CORG doesn't suggest we should only discuss this at Troy Baker or Voiceverse's articles - rather, it supports discussing it where relevant to the subjects involved. Since 15.ai was directly impacted as the plagiarized party, this controversy is relevant to its article. The fact that it's also relevant to Baker's article doesn't diminish its significance to 15.ai's history.
I agree we could potentially condense the section, but suggesting it should only appear in other articles overlooks how central 15.ai was to this controversy. As a new editor I cannot directly edit the article, so I'd appreciate it if someone could make these suggestions on my behalf. Best regards. AristotleOfCyrene (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of HackerKnownAs, see investigation)
NME is considered reliable within its area of expertise, which is music. [17]. My citation of CSECTION does not support its inclusion because the key is substantial coverage. See WP:SUBSTANTIAL which says news coverage of a a prolonged controversy (emphasis mine) is considered substantial. Again, we have coverage over the course of 3 days and then articles 2 weeks later announcing that Troy Baker is dropping them. That is not evidence of a prolonged controversy by any stretch of the imagination. It was, as Polygnotus summarized, a controversy where someone who used plaigarized datasets that were furnished by 4chan had their work plaigarized by some NFT company. Were it not for the fact that Troy Baker was associated with the company, it likely wouldn't have even made it to the news that it did receive. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 06:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
The noticeboard you posted states that NME is generally reliable as a source, not only in music. Besides, if we demanded absolute encyclopedia-like reliability and reputation for every single source and months of sustained coverage for every event and dismissed publications whenever they report outside a narrowly-defined expertise, we'd make Wikipedia nearly impossible to write and maintain. Many significant events have relatively brief news cycles but still merit inclusion for their broader impact and historical significance. It is clearly, at the very least, mentionable in the article, if not deserving of its own section in the article. AristotleOfCyrene (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of HackerKnownAs, see investigation)
I have to agree with Brocade here. This was a flash-in-the-pan, and it only got any traction because Troy Baker was mentioned. It's an issue of WP:DUE here, adding this to the article is overstating its importance to 15.ai as a topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Even so (I'm still of the opinion that the event warrants its own section, as an inclusionist Wikipedian myself), the existence of reliable sources connecting the event with 15.ai makes it at the very least mentionable in the 15.ai article. Maybe a fair compromise would be to have a redirect/main article template pointing to the Troy Baker article instead, and have much of the contents be in that article instead. AristotleOfCyrene (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of HackerKnownAs, see investigation)
Again, WP:DUE means no, it's really not mentionable. Not everything that happens should be included. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
WP:DUE is actually in favor of including it as a mention, contrary to your claim. To quote, "[...] fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.
All due respect, but your philosophy is one of many valid contrasting encyclopedia standards listed on Wikimedia ([18] and [19], for example). I see that you adopt an exclusionist stance on Wikipedia as is written on your user page, which is totally valid. I myself am more leaning towards the inclusionist side, but even so I've offered a potential compromise that would address both sides of the aisle. But what I don't agree with is asserting one side's opinion as the sole reigning truth - I'd wager there are many Wikipedians who would agree that the event deserves at least a mention on the article, especially with the existence of reliable sources headlining it. AristotleOfCyrene (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of HackerKnownAs, see investigation)
(edit conflict) At some point, when a bunch of people disagree with you, it is time to move on. WP:DUE is actually in favor of including it as a mention That is incorrect. I'd wager there are many Wikipedians who would agree that the event deserves at least a mention on the article I doubt it, so far it has been WP:1AM but if a WP:CONSENSUS forms that it should be included then it surely will. Polygnotus (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Please don't close a discussion so soon. I have limited free time as a grad student, and I came back to this discussion just now. To explicitly state, I disagree that the section should be removed, as I thought the section was fine as it originally was before your edits. GregariousMadness (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
What "bunch of people"? Are you an admin? I see three people disagreeing with me, and three people (including myself) agreeing with me. What consensus is there? AristotleOfCyrene (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of HackerKnownAs, see investigation)
You ignored significant. There is nothing significant about an event that barely got reported, and ONLY got reported because of one actor's name being involved. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
There's a number of articles that was reported on this very controversy and the fact that the voices were plagiarized from 15.ai. Plenty of other events on Wikipedia have sections on articles with a comparatively negligible number of sources, but I find it doubtful that an event like this that was on the front page of a number of tech outlets isn't as significant. To copy paste from what I posted before, see: [20] [21] [22] [23]. These are more than enough to establish notability. GregariousMadness (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Again, it was a flash-in-the-pan. Tons of news sites will pick up a minor thing to get clicks, that does not make the event significant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Ok, what even happened here while I was gone for the weekend? (o_O)
I've read through it and think both sides make fair points - yes, it was a brief controversy that mainly blew up because of Baker's involvement, but it did directly involve 15.ai's tech being stolen and raise some important questions about AI voice synthesis ethics - plus, this controversy wasn't just a couple days long (it was at least several weeks long if I remember correctly), and there are notable sources that do specifically state that 15.ai's tech was stolen. Let's also remember WP:NTEMP: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."
Maybe we don't need a whole section on it, but removing it entirely seems like overkill. Could just mention it briefly in a broader section about impact/reception, possibly even within the "reaction from voice actors" section. That way we keep the historically relevant bits without giving Twitter drama too much weight. I like User:ArtistotleOfCyrene's suggestion. I'll go ahead and edit the article to reflect that. GregariousMadness (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
@GregariousMadness: it did directly involve 15.ai's tech being stolen That didn't happen. raise some important questions about AI voice synthesis ethics That is incorrect, the important question raised is by 15.ai's use of copyrighted material by others, not by that NFT companies marketing person passing of a sample produced by 15.ai's work as someone elses. we keep the historically relevant bits there are none. Polygnotus (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
That didn't happen. [24] [25] The NFT company used a non-commercial service for commercial purposes and passed it off as their own. If that isn't stealing, then I don't know what is.
That is incorrect, the important questions raised is by 15.ai's use of copyrighted material by others, not by that NFT companies marketing person passing of a sample produced by 15.ai's work as someone elses. Not in this particular event.
there are none. I disagree. GregariousMadness (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Generating an audiofile or two via someone elses service and pretending your service generated them is not stealing tech of course. Not in this particular event. Yeah in this particular event no important questions were raised and nothing notable happened. I disagree. that is allowed, others disagree with you. Polygnotus (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
That's fine! I think it's healthy for discussion that we have disagreements. But what isn't good is your trying to force consensus through repetitive disagreement and telling people to "move on". Let's remember to be civil. GregariousMadness (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't see anything Polygnotus has done that is incivil. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I was mostly referring to At some point, when a bunch of people disagree with you, it is time to move on. before anyone else had the chance to chime in. It feels like an attempt to prematurely close discussion when there's plenty of things to discuss, and I found that to be weird, especially when the discussion hadn't even been 24 hours old yet... GregariousMadness (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
That's still not incivil. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
@Polygnotus: As per your latest edit: also this is probably factually incorrect (the company didnt plagiarize work, someone in the marketing department used an audiofile generated by 15.ai and pretended it was generated via their software) Please note the definition of "plagiarism": the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own (according to Oxford Dictionaries). This was by definition plagiarism, and I'm asking you to take a step back a little instead of editing so haphazardly when no consensus has been reached yet. GregariousMadness (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
So according to your definition this isn't plagiarism. They didn't take work or ideas, they used an online service to generate an audiofile. Polygnotus (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
The terms of service of the free service stipulated that any outputs must be used for non-commercial purposes, a violation of the terms, taking the work of 15.ai. See, for example, [26]. GregariousMadness (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Breaking the ToS != plagiarism. Polygnotus (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't what to tell you. Every outlet that reported on this uses some sort of phrase meaning "stolen" or "taken without permission" or "plagiarized", and it's not up to you to decide whether a company plagiarized something or not when pretty much every news outlet universally agrees that some sort of unethical behavior took place.
[27] [28] [29] [30] GregariousMadness (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Breaking the ToS could be some sort of unethical behavior but that isn't the same thing as plagiarism and I searched for the string "plag" in those 4 links and Firefox found no results so I am unsure why you posted them. And of course "stolen" or "taken without permission" do not have the same meaning as "plagiarized". Polygnotus (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Plagiarism, specifically, involves presenting someone else's work as their own. Voiceverse did this when announcing their partnership with Troy Baker. If we're talking pure semantics, you could argue that instead of plagiarism, the term misrepresentation could be a better fit, but then why remove that point altogether? You can easily change the term to "misrepresented" and it would still be appropriate for the article. Removing the incident entirely from the article would be throwing out important factual information. GregariousMadness (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
If I create an AI model from scratch, then the AI model is my work. But when I then train the AI model on data generated by others (sound files/artwork/whatever) it would be unreasonable for me to claim the copyright to what the AI model created. We are talking semantics, and words matter, specifically when we are accusing people or companies of stuff. We have to be exact. I don't think the information is important to this article because it has little to do with 15.ai. It would however be relevant if we would have an article about that NFT company, but we do not and it is not notable. Polygnotus (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I've addressed this below, but this is still plagiarism by definition, as agreed upon by multiple academic sources. For example (from my own alma mater): [31]
1. Plagiarism: Copying and pasting text, images, media, etc. generated by AI software into your document without attribution counts as plagiarism as defined by Duke. Repeating or slightly modifying phrases, sentences, or passages generated by AI tools without attribution is also plagiarism. Proper scholarly procedures require that all quoted material be identified by quotation marks or indentation on the page, and the source of information and ideas, if from another, must be identified and be attributed to that source. As described in the Duke Community Standard, plagiarism is not tolerated and may result in disciplinary action. Note that using AI as a grammar correction tool does not count as plagiarism. Duke library has a website with resources on proper AI citation. GregariousMadness (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Duke specifically says they are using their own definition of the word, which is fine of course, but that does not mean we have to. Polygnotus (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Regardless of anyone's definition of plagiarism, Wikipedia cannot say that Voiceverse admitted to plagiarism when the sources being used to verify the claim do not at all contain Voiceverse admitting to that using any combination featuring that word. The sources all refer to a tweet where Voiceverse says 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 which reads more like they're tossing the blame on someone in the marketing team than anything. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Disproportionate scrutiny?

Having roamed around other Wikipedia articles to edit in my spare time, it feels like the level of scrutiny being applied to this article seems disproportionate compared to many other Wikipedia articles. While maintaining high standards is paramount, I notice that articles with far more questionable sources often go unchallenged. The discussion around the Troy Baker/Voiceverse incident involves multiple reliable sources (both primary and secondary) documenting a significant event involving 15.ai, yet faces intense push for removal, while similar incidents documented with comparable sources remain unchallenged in other articles. We should focus on improving content rather than removal, especially when reliable sources exist. Let me know what you think! GregariousMadness (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Its not an intense push for removal, its just that if you say things that aren't true Wikipedians are possibly the group most likely to correct you. Polygnotus (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
@Polygnotus I'm sorry, but this isn't a valid justification for undoing the latest revision. You insist that plagiarism never took place (also this is probably factually incorrect (the company didnt plagiarize work, someone in the marketing department used an audiofile generated by 15.ai and pretended it was generated via their software) despite the reliable sources listed above that literally state that Voiceverse stole work from 15.ai (Troy Baker's Partner NFT Company Voiceverse Reportedly Steals Voice Lines From 15.ai, Voiceverse NFT admits to taking voice lines from non-commercial service, Troy Baker-backed NFT company admits to using content without permission, Voiceverse NFT Service Reportedly Uses Stolen Technology from 15ai), and you continue to dismiss the side disagreeing with you. The assertion that Voiceverse plagiarized (and to repeat, Oxford Dictionaries defines "plagiarism" as the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own) 15.ai is well-documented by multiple sources, and there is no consensus in this talk page whether to keep the section.
I'm going to have to ask you why you believe that no plagiarism took place and why it isn't notable when the aforementioned plagiarism is the headline in multiple articles. In the meantime, I'll revert your edits. As I don't want to start an edit war, I'm hoping that we will come to a consensus in a civil manner. Cheers! GregariousMadness (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
@GregariousMadness: See WP:ONUS. Polygnotus (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
this isn't a valid justification for undoing the latest revision if you are referring to that comment then I agree, but I explained my position elsewhere. You insist that plagiarism never took place The quote you are using shows that I use the word probably, which people who insist on something never do. reliable sources listed above that literally state that Voiceverse stole work if I create an AI model and you take some of its output while ignoring my ToS, that isn't plagiarism, right? Thats just breaking the ToS. If you steal my actual work, the AI model itself, things might be different. there is no consensus in this talk page whether to keep the section see WP:ONUS. I'll revert your edits you shouldn't because editwarring is uncool and we haven't finished discussing things yet. Polygnotus (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you're right that you used the word "probably", which is why I stopped myself from reverting your edit. I'm hoping that we can come to a consensus about this topic. if I create an AI model and you take some of its output while ignoring my ToS, that isn't plagiarism, right? Thats just breaking the ToS. If you steal my actual work, the AI model itself, things might be different. No, that's both stealing/plagiarism and breaking the TOS. This has happened many times in academia, where students have been expelled for plagiarism simply for misattributing sources, and recent orientation curriculums specifically include the misattribution/stealing of generative AI outputs in their research papers as an example of plagiarism (they warn all students of this on day 1 of orientation). you shouldn't because editwarring is uncool and we haven't finished discussing things yet. You're right, and I refrained from reverting your edit. GregariousMadness (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
See, for example: [32]
1. Plagiarism: Copying and pasting text, images, media, etc. generated by AI software into your document without attribution counts as plagiarism as defined by Duke. Repeating or slightly modifying phrases, sentences, or passages generated by AI tools without attribution is also plagiarism. Proper scholarly procedures require that all quoted material be identified by quotation marks or indentation on the page, and the source of information and ideas, if from another, must be identified and be attributed to that source. As described in the Duke Community Standard, plagiarism is not tolerated and may result in disciplinary action. Note that using AI as a grammar correction tool does not count as plagiarism. Duke library has a website with resources on proper AI citation. GregariousMadness (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I do not believe that the developer of an AI model owns the copyright to all output of that AI model, and certainly not if the AI model was trained on the copyrighted works of others. It would make more sense to give the owners of the copyrights of the works the model is based on the copyright. The law is slow to change. While human authors have copyright, AI models do not at this point. The example of students expelled for plagiarism is, in my view, not comparable because the university cares about whether they've done the work themselves, not if they are infringing on the rights of others. And the university is certainly not trying to protect the hypothetical rights of an AI model. Polygnotus (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
While you raise some interesting points about AI copyright law (and I tend to agree with some of the points you make), these are ultimately your personal interpretations. The example of students expelled for plagiarism is, in my view, not comparable because the university cares about whether they've done the work themselves, not if they are infringing on the rights of others. And the university is certainly not trying to protect the hypothetical rights of an AI model. The comparison to academic plagiarism remains relevant because plagiarism and copyright are distinct concepts - plagiarism is about misrepresenting the source or creator of work, regardless of copyright status.
In the Voiceverse case, the key issue isn't about who owns copyright to AI outputs. It's that they explicitly claimed content generated by 15.ai was created by their own different system. That misattribution fits the basic definition of plagiarism as stated in the above PDF: presenting someone else's work as your own.
I do not believe that the developer of an AI model owns the copyright to all output of that AI model, and certainly not if the AI model was trained on the copyrighted works of others. Your view that AI model developers shouldn't own copyright to outputs is a legitimate position in an ongoing debate, but it doesn't change the fact that falsely claiming to be the source of content is plagiarism, regardless of copyright status. Even if content is in the public domain or has ambiguous copyright, presenting it as your own original work is still plagiarism. GregariousMadness (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
We have now reached what I believe to be the crux of the issue, in order to plagiarize the "victim" needs to be the copyright owner of the work. But since the "victim" is an AI model, a glorified Markov chain, it owns nothing and it cannot posses copyright. In the same way you can't steal physical possessions owned by an AI model you also can't steal intellectual possessions owned by an AI model. See Personhood. I can't plagiarize the sound of the waves, or the wind rustling some leaves. Mother Nature (although personified here) has no legal personhood. Claiming that your AI model generated somehing another AI model generated is possibly not nice, but I don't think it can qualify as plagiarism. As far as I know there is no copyright law against victimless plagiarism. Universities of course do have rules against victimless plagiarism (you are not allowed to pay someone else to do the work for you and then pretend you did it). Polygnotus (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
We have now reached what I believe to be the crux of the issue, in order to plagiarize the "victim" needs to be the copyright owner of the work. I disagree - the "victim" isn't just the AI model, but the combined set of the AI model and the developer. You wouldn't say you plagiarized Word or Microsoft when you copy someone's text, but you would say you plagiarized the author who wrote using Word. Similarly, 15.ai is both the tool AND the service created by its developer - when Voiceverse used 15.ai's output and claimed it as their own, they were plagiarizing both the system's output and misrepresenting the work of the developers who created that system.
But since the "victim" is an AI model, a glorified Markov chain, it owns nothing and it cannot posses copyright. In the same way you can't steal physical possessions owned by an AI model you also can't steal intellectual possessions owned by an AI model. See Personhood. The AI model isn't just a "glorified Markov chain" operating in isolation - it's a complete service and system developed by people who specified terms for its use. When Voiceverse claimed output from this system was generated by their own technology, they were misrepresenting both the source of the content (15.ai) and implicitly the work of the developer who created that system.
I can't plagiarize the sound of the waves, or the wind rustling some leaves. Claiming that your AI model generated somehing another AI model generated is possibly not nice, but I don't think it can qualify as plagiarism. Plagiarism, ultimately, is about honest attribution of sources and work. (And this is what they tell us at orientation, just to be clear.) Just as academic plagiarism can occur with public domain works that have no current copyright holder, plagiarism can occur when misrepresenting the source of AI-generated content, regardless of the complex questions around AI copyright law and who technically owns what.
The key issue is that Voiceverse claimed someone else's system's output was created by their own different system. That's plagiarism of both the output and misrepresentation of the developer's work, plain and simple. If I were a professor (I'm still a few years away from that, sadly), I would certainly categorize this as a cut-and-dry case of plagiarism - who was the victim of this plagiarism would be irrelevant. GregariousMadness (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
The law currently does not give an AI model creator the copyright over the output of the AI model. the "victim" isn't just the AI model, but the combined set of the AI model and the developer not according to the law as I understand it. Plagiarism, ultimately, is about honest attribution of sources and work. that is not how the law works. For example, you can freely copy text from works in the public domain whose copyrights have expired without attribution. If I were a professor thank god you are not studying law! Polygnotus (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
The law currently does not give an AI model creator the copyright over the output of the AI model. Plagiarism and copyright infringement are two distinct concepts that you're conflating. You're correct about copyright law, but incorrect in using that to argue there was no plagiarism. You're right that current law doesn't give AI model creators copyright over AI output; this is a correct statement about copyright law. However, plagiarism is NOT defined by copyright law. Plagiarism is about presenting someone else's work as your own, regardless of copyright status. To reference your example, Students must cite public domain works even though they're not copyrighted. Academics must acknowledge their sources even when quoting copyright-expired materials. And finally, presenting someone else's public domain work as your own original creation is still plagiarism.
thank god you are not studying law! Seriously? That was uncalled for. GregariousMadness (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Plagiarism is not illegal in the United States in most situations. Instead it is considered a violation of honor or ethics codes and can result in disciplinary action from a person’s school or workplace. However, plagiarism can warrant legal action if it infringes upon the original author’s copyright... [33] If there is no "original author", because the AI model has whitewashed copyrighted stuff from other sources and can't itself be an author, how can it be plagiarism? Not sure how you interpreted that, I was just joking about the fact that the law is confusing and weird and less fun than AI. Polygnotus (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Plagiarism is not illegal in the United States in most situations. Instead it is considered a violation of honor or ethics codes and can result in disciplinary action from a person’s school or workplace. However, plagiarism can warrant legal action if it infringes upon the original author’s copyright... This only strengthens the argument that Voiceverse committed plagiarism, even while we debate the copyright implications. I'm glad we agree that plagiarism is an ethical violation, not a legal one. Copyright infringement is a separate legal issue that may or may not accompany plagiarism; therefore, whether 15.ai has legal copyright over its outputs is irrelevant to whether Voiceverse committed plagiarism. They could still have committed plagiarism (an ethical violation) even if no copyright was infringed.
Not sure how you interpreted that, I was just joking about the fact that the law is confusing and weird and less fun than AI. Not a very funny joke. Students like me spend over a decade working to become a professor in their area of expertise, and I don't like it when someone I don't know on the Internet jokes about my credentials. GregariousMadness (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
But I didn't joke about your or anyone else's credentials? Polygnotus (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
You wrote thank god you are not studying law! on my mention that I am working to become a professor. You don't see how that sounds insulting? GregariousMadness (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
No, that does not sound insulting at all to me. Can you explain why you react this way? Polygnotus (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
If you truly didn't mean any offense, then I'll consider it water under the bridge. For most of this talk page discussion, it felt like people weren't being friendly towards me (made worse because of a prior interaction on this article), so I took that statement to imply that I was so stupid in my arguments that studying the law would have been a disservice to the law. GregariousMadness (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh man I apologize if I come across that dickish, but that was not what I meant at all! I just think studying law is like bashing your head against a wall. If people are unfriendly what usually helps is WP:DR and WP:3O. And sometimes an admin dropping by to remind everyone how to behave helps. Polygnotus (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Those do not correlate. There are professors for everything under the sun, no one here had any way to know you were studying to be a law professor until you just now brought it up. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not studying to be a law professor... I'm a machine learning grad student working to be a professor, and professors and colleges are the ones who decide whether a student has been plagiarizing or not, not the law. May I ask, why are you confusing the conversation all of a sudden? GregariousMadness (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm confused because you're not being clear. You're really pissed off over a law joke, when it's got absolutely nothing to do with your studies?
Also, I'm really getting sick of your failure to WP:AGF and making accusatory statements towards others. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Both parties were clear enough, @Polygnotus and @GregariousMadness had already cleared up the confusion and made up before your unnecessarily confusing and aggressive statements. "You're really pissed off over a law joke", and "Also, I'm really getting sick of your failure to WP:AGF and making accusatory statements towards others." is not civil behavior. AristotleOfCyrene (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of HackerKnownAs, see investigation)
Says the WP:SPA. Regardless, I'm done with this discussion. There's no consensus for adding this to the article, and you can attempt an WP:RFC if you really want to add it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Please calm down and remember to be civil. We (Polygnotus and I) already cleared up the confusion and are now attempting to reach a compromise before you commented, so this abrasiveness is unnecessary. GregariousMadness (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
I had read their userpage so I knew they were not studying to become a law professor. Polygnotus (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
So if we agree that there is legally nothing wrong with what they did, and it was only an "ethical violation" by someone working in marketing, then its a non-story right? Storm in a teacup. Ethical violations and marketing go hand in hand, right? Polygnotus (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
So if we agree that there is legally nothing wrong with what they did, and it was only an "ethical violation" by someone working in marketing, then its a non-story right? No, absolutely not. As a personal aside, ethical violations in marketing shouldn't just be dismissed as normal or acceptable just because they're common. But on top of that, this wasn't just a minor marketing mishap/strategy. Voiceverse misrepresented their technological capabilities to potential investors/customers, used another company's technology while claiming it was their own, did this during a major partnership announcement with Troy Baker, and violated terms of service in the process. The fact that something might not be illegal doesn't make it a "non-story." Again, the notability of the story is supported by multiple sources directly implicating Voiceverse in the plagiarism of 15.ai's work, which should be the only thing that matters. GregariousMadness (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
In my view those are a lot of reasons why this is important to mention on an article about Voiceverse, but not 15.ai. What impact did it have on 15.ai? Perhaps we can compromise on something much shorter and less prominent that mentions the impact of the plagiarism? It may be possible to get consensus to include something like that. Polygnotus (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't mean to be dismissive, but I have to go soon. But being the victim of plagiarism is absolutely notable for 15.ai, as the incident gained significant media attention specifically because it involved 15.ai being exploited by a larger commercial entity, making it a defining moment in its history.
I'll give a personal analogy: if one of my academic articles was plagiarized by a more important researcher or publisher, it would have a significant impact on myself and my "history". It would definitely be something that, if I had my own Wikipedia article in the future, would be mentioned as an aside. GregariousMadness (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
It is always a bit sad when David's Wikipedia article is defined by Goliath's actions imo. I think there was previously an undue amount of focus on something that, in my view, was not very important, but if you disagree you may have some suggestions how to incorporate it into the article in a less prominent way. Polygnotus (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the engaging conversation yesterday. Apologies for jumping the gun on your joke - I was feeling antsy because this is my first time engaging in a serious debate like this on Wikipedia, and I'm not very good at serious debates. I took some time to think about it myself, and as you suggested, I'll be working on an edit that addresses your concerns while not making the event a centerpiece of the article. I'll let you know once I finish my edits! GregariousMadness (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
I've significantly trimmed down the section to only include a paragraph and a half of text. I'm thinking of trimming it down even further, but I believe it no longer puts an undue amount of focus on the event. Let me know if I should change anything further! Cheers. GregariousMadness (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree with a compromise similar to this - it was what I suggested earlier, so I'm happy we're coming to a consensus! We can still include the citations but condense the section a little bit. I'm sure we can find a good middle ground. AristotleOfCyrene (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of HackerKnownAs, see investigation)
There's nothing unusual here, especially for an article that recently had multiple WP:AN issues. As to I notice that articles with far more questionable sources often go unchallenged, that's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Feel free to bring up the problems those articles have so they get some attention. It's a volunteer project, so people pick and choose what they get involved with. Until they know there's a problem, they can't to do anything about it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I see. I was beginning to think there was a coordinated effort to remove content from an article that I drafted up as my first Wikipedian project, but that makes more sense. I still think that the contentious section has more than enough references and relevant to keep, but I understand the scrutiny now. GregariousMadness (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Please list or tag problems in other articles, and if you ping me I'd be happy to take a look. Polygnotus (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Sure. One article that I recently looked at that has a lot of unsourced text is USAMO, but having been a participant in Olympiad mathematics, I can safely say that it is notable and much of the information there is correct. If we followed the standards exhibited in this talk page, however, I would feel like over 70% of the article would have to be removed. The 15.ai article is extremely well-sourced in comparison. GregariousMadness (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I have added the {{Sources}} template which adds it to Category:Articles needing additional references. Polygnotus (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
We should focus on improving content rather than removal
Removing content is sometimes the same as improving the article. Mentions of a scandal, complete with tweets blasted across the article, does not improve the encyclopedic content of the article. It isn't a major event for 15.ai, the topic of the article, and it wasn't a prolonged controversy with sustained converage that warrants anything more than a brief mention. An entire section of the article about it is WP:UNDUE. Moreover, WP:NOTEVERYTHING states Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. A brief scandal of another company using a voiceline that was generated by 15.ai has functionally very little to do with 15.ai itself. It is, essentially, a conflict between 15(the creator of 15.ai), who for the purposes of Wikipedia is considered unnotable, , and Voiceverse, who for the purposes of Wikipedia is also considered unnotable. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 08:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding The Batch

I have been removing all instances of this source from the article. It was deemed unreliable [34] when the article was a draft. They were re-added after the article was released from draftspace by a now vanished user who flagged them as a minor edit. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a great point! I do see that the source was deemed unreliable when the article was a draft, but I also see that that was back in 2021, only two years after the newsletter was founded. Nevertheless, I think that in 2024, the newsletter has a much better reputation and is now considered rather reliable among the AI/ML community, as I see prominent leaders in the AI space referring to deeplearning.ai and The Batch from time to time. I've made a post in the Noticeboard to gather others' opinions here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Batch_/_deeplearning.ai_-_an_AI/ML_newsletter_founded_and_written_by_Andrew_Ng GregariousMadness (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
As per the discussion in the above link, I've re-added Andrew Ng's quote to the section. Cheers! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 22:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Cheers! Brocade River Poems (She/They) 18:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:15.ai/Archive_1&oldid=1264082839"