Talk:XAI (company)

It’s boys only why delete that?

All boys club should be noted here for the oddity of it thanks!2601:80:4380:1090:549C:C263:199A:190B (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, you appear to be a new editor. Generally it is best not to load the article lead with criticism. It would be best to mention criticism in the body of the article. If warranted, this information can be included in the lead. I don’t find it appropriate for the lead in this case as you are using one source that in my opinion feels like clickbait. Thriley (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

See below it is not meant as criticism it was the adjective “exclusively male” just like another edit used the term “ alumni”? 2601:80:4380:1090:549C:C263:199A:190B (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Business Insider better? https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-new-company-xai-website-2023-7 2601:80:4380:1090:549C:C263:199A:190B (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Daily Beast? https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-debuts-all-male-team-of-12-to-probe-true-nature-of-the-universe There are already numerous ref on the paragraph.2601:80:4380:1090:549C:C263:199A:190B (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to make a paragraph about it. Right now this feels like borderline Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Thriley (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally I don’t feel it needs a paragraph yet. If you have a suggestion that would state the fact that Musk appointed all males and zero woman, that would feel less tendentious or critical to you I don’t have a problem with that. 2601:80:4380:1090:549C:C263:199A:190B (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Added reference after 2nd deletion https://qz.com/elon-musk-s-new-ai-company-is-staffed-entirely-by-men-1850633240 https://qz.com/elon-musk-s-new-ai-company-is-staffed-entirely-by-men-1850633240 thank you2601:80:4380:1090:549C:C263:199A:190B (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Now my ref and two words were rm because it has been labeled “ criticism” it was meant as a description to content that was already in the article lede, I don’t see a problem. Also found more references such a WSJ, so it is noteworthy apparently.

2601:80:4380:1090:549C:C263:199A:190B (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Because it is all a bit early, it is still recruiting (for example). Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The formation of a company with all men is not an oddity, just as a team formed with all Chinese, Germans, African Americans, or Women is not an oddity. Given a small group of 12 men (all from different companies, half east asian and half european) who are extremely prominent in the AI research spaces, there's no contest to the qualifications of their expertise. Yes these citations mention there are 12 men, but they overlook their extremely concentrated expertise in a field that requires such experience. Labeling the team as just "12 men" (or in your words "a boy's club") is incredibly unjust from very opinionated, poor sources of reference.

This mention is also inappropriate for an impartial background section in the page. The fact that they're men doesn't provide any supportive information on the inception of the company, but the fact that they worked on respective AI projects does because it supports the company's goals. Opinionated statements should be placed in separated sections such as "controversy" or "criticism".

Mind you this is also a formation of a company 1 week ago. There isn't a full establishment of infrastructure and research teams for the long-term scalability of the company, so it's within due time the company hire's more staff (and in your hopes more women). Jojoa903 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Please do not assume my intentions or hopes about what any company does as my purpose is to collaborate on an encyclopedic article and not include any personal bias or judgement.

Although it was obvious that only men were included as founders, to not be accused of WP:OR references were added which are extensively covered in most sources in regards to this company.

If I were going to be judgy about what Mr Musk thinks about highly qualified women in the field of AI, I’d probably try to insert something in article about how instead of appointing one woman that we know for sure that Musk is aware of to XAI, he impregnated her with twins, but although it could be pertinent, that fact is not relevant to the facts that we know about the company so far.2607:FB91:BDAB:DB03:9596:D732:C97C:580B (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Using the company's legal name and registration date in lead and infobox

Hello,

xAI was incorporated on 9 March 2023, and is legally called "X.AI Corp.". See https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_nv/E28915122023-8. I changed this information in the article, but it was reverted for not being what the company's website says.

Companies will write their names differently all the time. They will use trade names and different capitalisations. That doesn't change what the company is officially registered as. xAI's website reads "xAI Corp © 2023.". That's how the name is displayed on the site. That doesn't change how it's legally registered, which is as "X.AI Corp.".

The date on the website is "July 12th 2023", and says "Today we announce the formation of xAI.". That's the announcement of the company, not its official registration date, which is March 9.

These details should be changed to the officially registered ones in the article. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Their (official) website say "xAI" (but the address is "https://x.ai/") their (official) Twitter feed is "xAI" but their user name is @axi [[1]]. Now it maybe that their corporate name is xAI, but for legal reasons may have to be registered as XAI (which may be why their Twitter tag is not the same as the account name, it does not do silly name). Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Yes, the company's trade name is xAI. That, again, does not change what it is officially registered as. The company name is not "xAI Corp". It is "X.AI Corp.". Note the capitalisation and punctuation. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

But we use wp:commonname here, so if the name it trades under is xAI, that will be its common name. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Nope, not how it works. WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles. It redirects to a section in a page called "Wikipedia:Article titles". I am not saying we should change the article title. xAI is the COMMONNAME, so it should be the article name. That is not what I am saying. We do not need to change the article title. I am referring to the first sentence and the infobox. They should say the company's legal name, as with any other article about a company. See Google, Walmart, Costco, Microsoft, AT&T, Neuralink, PayPal, SpaceX, and any other article about a company. They all put the legal name in the first sentence and infobox. xAI should be treated no differently. Strugglehouse (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Look a the examples in common name, many all use the common name in the first line, and in info box title. Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Some do, yes, but these are not companies. Please see all the examples I gave, as well as other companies listed at Lists of companies. The full, legal name of the company is always used in the first sentence and infobox title. The documentation for Template:Infobox company says that the company's full name should be used – "The full, legal name of the company, correctly reproducing punctuation and abbreviations or lack thereof. The full legal name of the company may be different from the common name used for the article title." Strugglehouse (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Strugglehouse: Per WP:NCCORP, I changed it last week from xAI to xAI Corp picking it up from their website. I agree that X.AI Corp.[2] is appropriate. Ptrnext (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ptrnext Okay, that's great, thanks. I was trying to find WP:NCCORP, but couldn't find it. Thanks for linking it. I will make the change now as it is literally Wikipedia guidelines to include it. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 01:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I have had my say, time for others to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn.

(non-admin closure) Strugglehouse (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

---

XAI (company) → XAI – Remove unnecessary parentheses/disambiguator Strugglehouse (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Strugglehouse (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding to this. After seeing the arguments of the people on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Contested technical requests, I am more neutral on this. However, I thought I'd open the discussion here anyway, to see what others think. Strugglehouse (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose. This US company is too young to be considered WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term XAI, which has for decades been used worldwide in other meanings. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Kashmiri I think I agree. The XAI redirect should be changed back to XAI (disambiguation), and this article name should stay the same. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  The XAI redirect has been moved back. Strugglehouse (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2023 (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.

What is the AI called

It seems musk has announced something called "Grok" is this instead of or in addition to "TruthGPT" (is TruthGPT even still an idea, or is it now defunct, and that a failure of crystal ball)? Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

In fact does it even have an AI on the market, and if not why are we just repeating press statements about what they want to do in the future? Why not just wait until they develop and deliver a product to the public? Before saying what it is? Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

So it is called Grok, and not "TruthGPT". Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)