Talk:15.ai

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

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

• 15ai logo.png

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

Edit notice

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)

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

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

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

• 15.ai logo.png

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

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

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

• 15 ai Transparent.png

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

More info needed on Troy Baker scandal

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)

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)

Potential good article nomination

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)

Source on the use of 15.ai in pornography

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)

GA Review

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)

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)

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: the main website itself, the Twitter account of the subject, the 4chan link to the preservation project, and 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)
	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)
	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)
	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)

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

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)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the developer of 15.ai claims that as little as 15 seconds of a person's voice is sufficient to clone it up to human standards using artificial intelligence? Source: The developer of 15.ai claims that as little as 15 seconds of data is sufficient to clone a voice up to human standards, a significant reduction in the amount of data required.
  https://www.eurogamer.net/troy-baker-backed-nft-firm-admits-using-voice-lines-taken-from-another-service-without-permission
  https://towardsdatascience.com/generate-your-favourite-characters-voice-lines-using-machine-learning-c0939270c0c6
  • Reviewed:

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)

Page issues and additional controversies?

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)

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)

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)

Voiceverse Twitter image

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)

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)

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

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

• Screenshot from SPY IS A FURRY.png

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

Copyrighted material in deep learning section

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)

False information

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)

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)

because its been out for about 2-3 years at this point and no updates are coming from the creator. Mr.DetectiveMan (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Change to Past Tense

It's been down for over a year and eight months, there is absolutely nothing on the website, and the last communication from the developer was a year and three months ago. At a certain point, references to the website in the article need to be changed to the past tense, the time it has been down is almost as long as the time the site was up.

At a minimum, a section should be added that mentions the removal of the website and its extremely long downtime. Elude107 (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Have done the latter. However, edit history shows that mention of the downtime was present as recent as this week, but was removed by User:HackerKnownAs. I'm concerned over potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article but will dedicate a separate post here to this. SuperStain (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Change "under maintenance" to "dead".

Reading the room and calling it as I see it. Site's in limbo and it will always be in limbo, so it's good as dead. 94.192.47.230 (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

probably ⇒ Zhing-Za, they/them, 17:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok 72.45.9.148 (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

has anyone been able to trace the creator and ask if it will EVER be put back up so we can update this article? TheLostLaugh (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

the closest thing I could find are unverified rumours. People claim that the creator competely abandoned the site and is using the money gained from the Patreon to host a TF2 server. The closest thing to concrete that could reasonably be placed is that the creator promiced not to go on Twitter until the site was finished, but the creator changed the profile's picture.

honestly, I think it would be fine if they considered the site dead; it's been more than a year since any contact occured (other than the unverified rumours mentioned before and the profile change). the site is simply a blank page as well, when there would usually be a message when the site was being maintained before. Thought 1915 (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Found evidence of the site being used to host a TF2 server via SourceBans and what appears to be a landing page for the server itself, with both showing that 15.ai is in fact being used to host a TF2 server. While there is no clear proof that Patreon money is being used to host the server, I believe the fact that the site is currently being used to host a TF2 server while having been inactive for over two years should be enough to deem the site abandoned. I recommend paying attention to this article, however. I've previously mentions my concerns over possible conflicts of interest with User:HackerKnownAs. This account was created shortly after a wave of articles from various gaming news outlets discussing the website, their contribution history is comprised almost exclusively of edits to this article and other AI-related articles and many of these edits have been done either to remove mentions of similar websites or to promote 15.ai/remove perceived criticism of the website. With this in mind, I believe that this account is being operated either by the owner of the website or someone with close ties to the website. I'll check both this article's edit history and HackerKnownAs' user contributions periodically over the next few days and see if anything pops up after posting this. SuperStain (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Ironic because 15 has made websites this year, all MLP themed, and they have been traced to openly operated in 4chan's /mlp/ section in the past, while hosting the TF2 server.

It's uncertain if the TF2 server is still operational, but it would help if someone is able to enter it and check on it to confirm? TheLostLaugh (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I have the article on watch as well. Whoever runs the account seems to edit in a monthly span though. The TF2 server mentions permanent bans of a user within this month (which is September of 2024 as I write this).

I have not TF2 installed, and the server rules seem so strict that I could not join even if I wanted to without also being permanently banned. either way, the creator has clearly made other projects and uses the 15[dot]ai domain for another purpose.

whatever happens, I categorized the site as abandoned. as Wikipedia is not a place for original research, it would not be correct to display the server hosting findings in the Wikipedia article without an independent party which also confirms it. I say that everything has been solved in terms of the topic. Please object if you believe something else. Thought 1915 (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

aa de unatkozom… inkább megyek a gc-be 213.197.77.221 (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Mi? Ez egy Wikipédia beszélgetési oldal. ⇒ Zhing-Za, they/them, 03:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Editing with respect to the last two topics of Past Tense

After an inital attempt to place the ideas of the last two topics into the page, a series of reverts and anti-reverts have taken place over the span of the last few days. It is altogether fitting that there be a reevaluation regarding whether the change of the article to Past Tense was merited.

For those supporting the addition of past tense, they point to the fact that 15 mentioned not changing the account's profile picture until the site was updated. 15's profile picture has been updated without an ajoint update to the site. The domain currently hosts a TF2 server as well.

For those against the addition of past tense, they point out that no explicit mention of abandoning the project was made by 15, and that 15 mentioned that 15 was still working on the project.

I would also like to mention that another valid criticism from a neutral standpoint has been stated: how would the abandonmnet, if kept on the page, be cited? Would simply linking to the tweet of 15 stating about not using Twitter until updating 15[dot]ai and linking some proof of the profile picture be enough, or should a different citation be used?

This is one of my first major attempts at contibution to an article, so please state anything else that would be worth mentioning in this topic. Thought 1915 (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@RocketKnightX:

1. the site is completely blank.

2. 15 has not said anything for 19 months.

3. a tf2 server is hosted on 15's servers.

the site is abandoned. ltbdl☃ (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Once again 15 said "I've been alerted that there appears to be a coordinated attack against my project by another service, with affiliated groups spreading rumors that I had abandoned http://15.ai, or that I had placed it behind a paywall, or that I had killed myself, etc. I assure you that I am still the same stubborn person I was three years ago when I first launched my project – please don't believe these malicious lies. I'm doing the best I can, and I'll always continue to do so." I suggest you cease and desist vandalizing the page and be patient. RocketKnightX (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

yes, he said that. 19 months ago. ltbdl☃ (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

There is some information I would like to add to further a consensus:

Although the TF2 server shares the same domain as the base site, it appears that the servers are completelty different, with 15[dot]ai resting at 104.21.36.149 and tf2[dot]15[dot]ai resting at 74.91.123.131.

There is an alledged site made by 15 located at https://pony.best/, located at 172.67.187.214. The projects part of the page links to the Wikipedia page instead of the website oddly enough. Thought 1915 (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's the proof of an updated Twitter profile https://x.com/fifteenai/photo RocketKnightX (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

We aren't shown when their profile picture was updated, or that it was ever even updated. This proves nothing. Checking the site linked by Thought 1915 shows that 15 has been credited with web development for several MLP fan conventions as well as some kind of pony-themed Second Life(?) server. Their work on these projects should be taken as confirmation that 15 has no intention of returning to work on 15.ai. Let it go. It's over. SuperStain (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Although archive[dot]org has blacklisted 15's Twitter account, his Twitter account's replies and bits of the Wikipedia page removed by a user before mention 15's profile page.

I agree with you on the point that 15's involvement with other projects should be taken as a sign of abandoning this project though, especially considering the time since any last contact related to the site occurred. Thought 1915 (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@RocketKnightX: why are you so insistent on marking it as under maintenance? ltbdl☃ (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The project is not abandoned.

Here's the proof: https://x.com/robonkerz/status/1841229951573647696 RocketKnightX (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

To @RocketKnightX,

I believe you have sent a different URL to what you intended to place, as this URL links to a completely unrelated profile change.

To be quite blunt, you're the main person who has been against considering the site abandoned. What is the main reason that has you believing that the site would not be considered abandoned at this point? There have been multiple proofs that 15 has been uninterested in maintaining this project.

The 3RR threshold was broken a while back. This is significant, as it means that this is now an edit war, and Administrators could place editing restrictions on everyone involved.

I was under the impression that a decision was already made in the talk pages, but I was mistaken. I request again quite bluntly: please make a decision, whether it be by vote, reasoning, or other method. Thought 1915 (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Whoops! Wrong post! Here it is! https://x.com/kokytkdl/status/1840395973647888432 RocketKnightX (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can only take this as proof that 15 has no intention of returning to work on the site. The URL you've linked shows an image of the website linked by Thought 1915, and the person who uploaded the image is clearly using it to prove that 15 still uses the internet while not updating the site. At this point, I can only assume that you and HackerKnownAs have some kind of vested interest in protecting the site's image, and that such interest will interfere with the neutrality of this article. SuperStain (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I verily feel like this issue has taken up more time than it should. I will place my personal opinion on this issue because of this.

There have been multiple evidences used to prove that 15 has abandoned this project, including counterevidence to the one piece of evidence that refutes the claim that 15 has abandoned this project (that being proof of 15 moving onto other projects and all lack of update within the last 1.5 years).

Due to this, I believe that it would be appropriate to deem the placing of this article in the past tense and the declaration of 15[dot]ai as abandoned to be the correct decision. Even though many editors have this sentiment, I feel that placing this consensus shared by the editors will be enough provide the possible conclusion to this edit war. Thought 1915 (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@SuperStain If this truly be the case (which you can check by looking at RocketKnightX's contribution history and the bottom of Libdl's talk page), and if it truly interferes with the neutrality of the site, what would you suggest be done about it? Any further reverts risk 3RR sanctions and a third party has already issued a warning and has taken notice.

In the rare case of tone confusion, this reply is intended to be interpreted as a genuine and curious response. Thought 1915 (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@RocketKnightX: this is a screenshot of https://pony.best, what does that prove? ltbdl☃ (talk) 01:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You will never understand. RocketKnightX (talk) 08:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

???????????? ltbdl☃ (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@RocketKnightX: can you explain? ltbdl☃ (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

People thinks 15.ai is dead, but it's not. Something tells me 15 will make the project not just perfect, but something new and interesting. You know what I mean. RocketKnightX (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@RocketKnightX: i really don't. ltbdl☃ (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@RocketKnightX: do you have evidence to back up your assertions? ltbdl☃ (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)