Talk:Character.ai/Archive 1

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:

• Character.ai logo.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

im sorry what?@Tord from eddsworld 104.188.239.24 (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Controversy Edit

It appears that the current controversy keeps being deleted by admins with no reason as to why.

This is pretty important considering the extreme fetishes allowed on the website as well as the copious amount of evidence of it.

It appears someone is attempting to hide these items. 174.215.150.38 (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It's being removed because it's not supported by reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

"Reliable sources"

Oh? Is that so? Name them. It's important to talk about this fiasco because it's about anti-censorship of the site's AI chatbots. The fact that they shut down the Discord server, are using quite obviously botted responses on the Subreddit, and even continuing to blindly plug their proverbial ears and making up lies of the "death threats" that they have zero evidence of I think speaks volumes that it's totalitarian censorship and that's something the CAI community is rightfully against, because totalitarian censorship like what they're doing is, and I'm sure everyone can absolutely agree here, is wrong and unneeded and selfish. The fact that they're not willing to listen and suspiciously countering with obvious bot responses on the Subreddit I think speaks volumes, much less them continuing down an obviously destructive path that nobody wants to see. Also the fact that they'd lied through their teeth about supposedly "fixing" the "bad coding" that led to this when it wasn't "bad coding" like they claim it is just strikes me the wrong way and I 100% side with the fandom community for CAI.

With that said:

Ball's in your court to prove otherwise. OctoShiver20 (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking to be named, but the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The content being added was not supported by reliable sources. That is the issue. The article cannot include original research; the statements needs to be backed by a reliable source, especially if it's a controversy section. - Aoidh (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Again:

What are these "reliable sources"?

All this hot air and yet, you auto-redirect to whatever this "onus" states, which I do not count as legitimate evidence of any form. What does count is naming an outside site proving that it's not a controversy (which I have serious doubts on!). Otherwise, being in denial that it's a legitimate issue of the absolutely totalitarian censorship that it is just incredibly backwards and allows these things to take root. OctoShiver20 (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS, as it explains what a reliable source is. The burden of proof is on the editor who wants to include the content; if you want the information included in the article, it is up to you to provide reliable sources supporting the information. Plenty of software has its detractors; that doesn't make it a controversy nor does it make it worth mentioning in the article. What reliable sources do you have to verify this controversial information? - Aoidh (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Aoidh was saying there are reliable sources to deny the allegations, but rather just saying that there are none which support it either. And while it's easy for anyone to confirm for themselves that there is a controversy going on, Wikipedia's policy says that a reliable source must be cited before the information is eligible for inclusion. I saw an edit in the history where someone cited a snapshot of the subreddit; while I'm sure they meant well, I'm not sure whether this would qualify under the policy on primary sources. flarn2006 [u t c] time: 05:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Content on wikipedia needs to be veriable to reliable sources, and it can't be original research. We need reliable secondary sources to be including this content in this article Tristario (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The fact that there's a controversy is not disputed. It's plainly obvious to anyone looking at any social media page about the site, aside from the site's built-in forums which are heavily moderated and censored. That said, I'm aware that original research doesn't count on Wikipedia, so I realize that this alone doesn't necessarily mean the content should be re-added until a reliable source covers it. flarn2006 [u t c] time: 05:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

What you really mean is it's not being supported by sources that support your opinion. Æy Æy Æy (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

If that's intended to be a reply to me as the threading indicates, then no, that's not what I mean and I similarly don't have any real opinion on this specific matter outside of ensuring that content follows WP:V and WP:DUE. Reliable sources have not been presented to show that a controversy exists that warrants mention in the article (WP:DUE). If reliable sources do exist that show this, then I think they should be discussed, but none have been brought forward. - Aoidh (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Seeing the course of events on the subreddit /r/CharacterAI, it's safe to say that the devs of the service are keen on increasingly expanding the filter. For instance, the filter used on c.ai does not only filter NSFW, it now also filters violence and potentially disturbing topics too. A good example post that documented this on Reddit is this one. I think this Wikipedia article would very much benefit from a section that goes over this, e.g. a "criticism" or "development" section to include sources like that. But apparently this will require a major news outlet to report on this. I'm not a regular on Wikipedia so I'm not in the know what qualifies and what not, just sharing my 2 cents after checking this article. 95.223.75.243 (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2024 (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:

• Character.ai wise mystical tree convo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU23 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 May 2023 and 10 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NoemieCY (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by NoemieCY (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Registration requirement?

It seems that registration is now required, not optional like the wiki page suggests 50.34.158.137 (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You can still talk to bots as a guest on the website, so it's still optional. NotAPenguinSpy (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Page written like advertisement due to majority of the page written by a promotional account

I have already put the advertising template, but I didn't even know of the fact that the reason it's written like this is because of Character.AI. CharlieEdited (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That user's sole promotional rewrite of the article in October was reverted twenty minutes later, so it's not a reason for anything.

The current version of article doesn't particularly seem written like an advertisement to me. Which parts are you concerned about? Belbury (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No part of the article was written by that now-blocked editor, as their edits were reverted in their entirety. The edit summary cites a lack of controversy segment as well, but it's worth pointing WP:CRITS out in response to that concern. However, do reliable sources show that there is some controversy that exists that isn't sufficiently covered in the article? If so then @CharlieEdited: perhaps it might help to provide those reliable sources on the talk page? - Aoidh (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the tag since there don't seem to be any outstanding issues with the content that have been mentioned here on the talk page, and there has been no response to the comments so far. If there are specific issues I think it would be beneficial to discuss them and/or address them in the article directly. - Aoidh (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The tag was kinda unjustified anyway. Archive this, don’t know why I added the tag in the first place. CharlieEdited (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

huh 104.188.239.24 (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Censorship Controversy

I’ve noticed that every attempt to talk about the censorship controversy has been deleted. Why exactly? 150.195.171.3 (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

A quick glance at the talk page shows such discussions still in place. As of writing this there are three discussions above that were made by editors and not automated comments, and of those three, two are discussions about this controversy and whether it should be mentioned. Comments are not being removed for being about any controversy. What was removed was a complaint about the subject itself which was in no way an attempt to discuss the article. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, discussions should be about the article, not opinions and commentary about the subject itself. - Aoidh (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

New information and updates

I’d like to suggest some updates to this article. I work for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by the subject of this article.

1. Please fix the inaccurate date in the Infobox under the “Launched” heading. It currently says “September 16. 2022”, where in fact the company was founded in November 2021. (The Character.ai website did launch in September of 2022, but that is not the launch date for the company itself.)

Here is a replacement line for the Infobox, which includes a reliable source for the foundation of the company:

| launch_date = November 2021 (2021-11)

2: Please add a new section called “History” directly after the Lead section. It’s a standard section for Wikipedia company pages. Here’s my suggested first paragraph for the new section, which describes the context of the company’s initial establishment and is based on prominent press sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, and Business Insider:

History

Character.ai was established in November 2021.The company’s co-founders, Noam Shazeer and Daniel De Freitas, were both engineers from Google. While at Google, the co-founders both worked on AI-related projects: Shazeer was a lead author on a paper that Business Insider reported in April 2023 “has been widely cited as key to today's chatbots”, and De Freitas was the lead designer of an experimental AI at Google initially called Meena, which would later become known as LaMDA.

3. Please add a second paragraph to the new History section proposed above. This paragraph summarizes information about the company’s funding that received coverage in a prominent news source.

Here is my suggestion for this new second History paragraph:

Character.ai raised $43 million in seed funding at the time of its initial foundation in 2021.

4. Please add a third paragraph to the new History section proposed above. This paragraph summarizes information about the launch of the company’s core services, which received coverage in prominent media sources.

Here is my suggestion for this new third History paragraph:

The first beta version of Character.ai’s service was made available to the public in September of 2022. The Washington Post reported in October 2022 that the site had “logged hundreds of thousands of user interactions in its first three weeks of beta-testing”. It allowed users to create their own new characters, and to play text-adventure game scenarios where users navigate scenarios described and managed by the chatbot characters.

5. Please add a fourth paragraph to the new History section proposed above. This paragraph covers important events or milestones in the company's history in 2023, supported by tier one sources such as The New York Times. Character.ai has emerged as one of the main new AI companies in 2023 based on the press coverage.

Here is my suggestion for this new fourth History paragraph:

Following a $150 million dollar funding round in March 2023, Character.ai became valued at approximately $1 billion.

Thank you for taking the time to review these suggested updates. W12SW77 (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Note to self jp×g🗯️ 06:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@JPxG: Just reminding you of your reminder. Thanks. W12SW77 (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your patience. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

References