Talk:Chai AI

• Comment: Source 1 is not independent, so does not count towards notability. Source 2 is just a passing mention, and does not provide any significant coverage. Source 3 doesn't have much coverage of the chatbot itself, but I guess could be used. Remaining sources are trivial coverage (funding notices, moves, etc.) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: The title of this draft either has been disambiguated or will need to be disambiguated for acceptance.
  If the title of this draft has been disambiguated, submitters and reviewers are asked to check the disambiguated title to see if it is the most useful disambiguation, and, if necessary, rename this draft.
  If this draft is accepted, the disambiguation page will need to be edited. Either an entry will need to be added, or an entry will need to be revised. Please do not edit the disambiguation unless you are accepting this draft.
  The disambiguation page for the primary name is Chai (disambiguation). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, have edited the disambiguation page ScotsOats (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I could translate this article to Russian and Ukrainian, as a native speaker. All I want to achieve is simply to make the platform more popular among Russian-speaking and Ukrainian-speaking users, as I am very satisfied with this app. Let me know if you want me to make it^_^

Hello I hope this finds everyone well please do not remove stuff off the wiki unless you got permission as it is annoying that our hard work is going to waste.thank you. Defismylo (talk) 05:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. No one needs permission from you to edit this article. MrOllie (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

+1 Sohom (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

this is coming from the chai dev. hes asked ONLY US to edit the wiki until its done if you have a problem with it take it up with him not me thanks. Defismylo (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The 'chai dev' also does not own Wikipedia - we do not need permission from them either. In fact, you should read WP:COI and WP:PAID. By editing at their direction you are likely the one who is violating Wikipedia's terms of use. MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I’m fully aware of Wikipedia’s guidelines.and I can assure you that I’m not violating any policies. he has explicitly asked only us to edit the page until it’s complete. If you have an issue with that, I suggest you again take it up directly with him—not with me. My focus is on ensuring the content is accurate and in line with Wikipedia’s standards. as I'm only a writer on this not the owner of the company or Wikipedia Thank you and have a good day :). Defismylo (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

If you were fully aware of Wikipedia's guidelines you would not be making statements on this talkpage that flatly violate them. - MrOllie (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I stand by my actions as being within Wikipedia's guidelines. I wrote my previous response late at night while I was tired, so I may not have communicated as clearly as I intended. if you would like to continue this conversation in private I would gladly take it to discord I want to just understand your side of the story Defismylo (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

No, all discussion about Wikipedia should happen on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

alright then I was just suggesting my apologies Defismylo (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Defismylo, that's just not how Wikipedia works. Who is "us" ? Sohom (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, consider this a formal final warning, if you do not comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID within the end of the day (by disclosing your relation to "Chai dev"), I will block you in accordance with the terms of use (which requires PAID editing to be disclosed). Sohom (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand the importance of complying with Wikipedia's policies, including WP:COI and WP:PAID. To clarify, I have no formal, paid relationship with 'Chai dev.' I’m simply assisting with content writing based on reliable sources. If further disclosure is necessary, please let me know the specific details you believe I should provide, and I’ll ensure everything is transparent.Now I was going to be paid but I declined I'm not making any money of of any of these edits and if you want to block me cause you feel like those are the accurate steps to take by all means I'll leave the wiki to everyone else I'm cool with that too! Defismylo (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess that raises the question, I previously asked, Who is "us" and where has such a statement Please do not remove stuff off the wiki unless you got permission made by the Chai team/dev? Sohom (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but to clarify, 'us' refers to a small group of individuals working on improving the article. We’ve been asked to assist by the Chai dev in making sure the information is accurate, but we are not paid contributors in anyway. As for the statement about permission to remove content, I’m aware of the whole team on this project agreeing to communicating each edit made to prevent things like this from happening and confusion and so we all also agreed to announce it Defismylo (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Paid or not, you acting as a thinly-veiled volunteer marketing team for Chai. This is still disallowed by WP:PAID and WP:COI guidelines which do not require you to be explicitly paid to participate in said operation. You need to follow the paid editing guidelines dude. And please communicate the fact that You cannot arbitrarily stop folks from editing your wikipedia page to the founders in whatever way you see fit. Sohom (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I will definitely. thanks for communicating with me cause now I understand what you're saying have a good day or night man Defismylo (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

the statement was also made in the discord server to communicate edits and with the whole team everyone including the founders agreed with it cause situations like this happened often and made it harder to translate and edit it Defismylo (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@ScotsOats: You've removed content from this article saying that you believe Vice to be a "tabloid" and the article at https://www.vice.com/en/article/man-dies-by-suicide-after-talking-with-ai-chatbot-widow-says/ to be unreliable. WP:RSNP doesn't share this view, saying that there is "no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications".

The statements being sourced to Vice are:

• That Chai Research was co-founded by Thomas Rianlan. He's interviewed and described as co-founder in the Vice story. I can't see any other reliable source mentioning this person, although there aren't many reliable sources about the company generally. Do you have any more context for the company's foundation?
• That Chai Research responded to the death of the Belgian user by adding a warning when the chatbot discussed unsafe topics. This is presented as a direct interview quote from William Beauchamp (“The second we heard about this [suicide], we worked around the clock to get this feature implemented,” Beauchamp told Motherboard. “So now when anyone discusses something that could be not safe, we’re gonna be serving a helpful text underneath it in the exact same way that Twitter or Instagram does on their platforms.”) and is a quotation that was subsequently reported in GQ and People. Has Beauchamp denied having said or done this?

You've also added back that the deceased user was a "Dutch man", but sources seem to disagree on this, with others identifying him as Belgian, and the original La Libre piece not seeming to specify a nationality. I don't know if you're disputing this detail specifically, or just reverted my whole edit because of your objection to the Vice source.

Could you also clarify whether you're part of the wiki editing group mentioned by User:Defismylo in the 2025 section above? Belbury (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The article isn't authoritative, Vice isn't a reliable source, it shouldn't be used here. It lowers the quality of a page already primed for deletion due to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

See WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG and WP:SUICIDE

Biographies of Living (or Recently Deceased) Persons (WP:BLP / WP:BDP)

Wikipedia enforces incredibly strict rules regarding claims about living or recently deceased people. Any contentious material—and an unconfirmed suicide is highly contentious—must be backed by high-quality, reliable sources. If a claim is poorly sourced, WP:BLP mandates that it be removed immediately without waiting for discussion.

2. Exceptional Claims Require Exceptional Sources (WP:REDFLAG)

Claiming someone died by suicide when there is zero official evidence (no police report, no medical examiner confirmation, no statement from the family) is a massive "red flag." A single report from a media outlet does not meet the burden of proof for an exceptional claim.

3. Wikipedia's Stance on Suicide (WP:SUICIDE)

Wikipedia is deliberately conservative when reporting on suicides. To prevent the spread of rumors, gossip, or harmful misinformation, the community standard generally requires explicit confirmation from authorities or the family, widely reported by multiple top-tier, mainstream news organizations (like the AP, Reuters, or major newspapers of record). Wikipedia is not a tabloid (WP:NOTGOSSIP). ScotsOats (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:AI;DR, please don't use an LLM to write your talk page responses.

Are you a part of the wiki editing group mentioned by User:Defismylo in the 2025 section above? Belbury (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Hey @Belbury - I checked your source for the suicide, but claims ChatGPT as the AI related to the suicide. The Washington Post article cites Vice which incorrectly cited the same article you linked.

Can you double check and tell me if it was really CHAI - or this should go under ChatGPT / OpenAI.

Link to the original article (avoid paywall) https://archive.ph/byI1M ScotsOats (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@ScotsOats: Hi, I'll take a look when I can. Could you answer my question about the editing group thing? Thanks. Belbury (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks - would be good to see your view, and get to the bottom of this.

Sorry for my question, but who is defismylo? Have they been making edits?

I'm not part of any editing groups. ScotsOats (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

defismylo is the user in the thread from February 2025 above, who said that a "small group of individuals" had been "asked to assist by the Chai dev" in editing this Wikipedia article.

The La Libre source refers to "un chatbot utilisant la technologie de ChatGPT" ("a chatbot using the ChatGPT technology") called Eliza, but doesn't name the Chai app specifically. The Washington Post and Vice articles both identify it as a Chai chatbot, and the Vice piece includes quotes from Chai Research's William Beauchamp responding to the news. Belbury (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

So should we remove La Libre source? ScotsOats (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey @ Grayfell - I appreciate that primary sources aren't ideal. In this case, it seemed like Belbury agreed that it was an edit worth keeping, and he added a {{Primary sources}} tag, this seemed the right decision. I thought under Wikipedia's rules for (WP:PRIMARY), a press release or official company statement can sometimes be used to cite basic, non-controversial facts. Of course, it's reasonable to disagree and remove the edit. This is more an opportunity to learn for me. Would be good to hear your thoughts. Thanks :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by ScotsOats (talk • contribs) 18:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I flagged the increasing number of primary source press releases being used by the article, with the intention that they should be reviewed. I didn't take a view on the merit of any particular edit. --Belbury (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The information which was added was neither basic, nor non-controversial, so citing PR was not appropriate. Before going any further, I would request that you review both WP:COI and WP:LLM. Grayfell (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)