Talk:AlphaChip
Add topic | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Request to update AlphaChip controversy bullet with investigation outcome
[edit] | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
Hi, I represent Anna Goldie and AlphaChip and am requesting an addition to the disambiguation list to include information about Nature's investigation outcome.
Requested changes:
Addition of Nature addendum to AlphaChip disambiguation
[edit]Current text:
AlphaChip may refer to: * DEC Alpha, a 64-bit RISC instruction set architecture developed by Digital Equipment Corporation, originally named "Alpha AXP", as well as DEC CPUs using this architecture * AlphaChip (company), a Russian semiconductor design and R&D company established in 1992 * AlphaChip controversy, a scientific integrity dispute regarding Google DeepMind's AI chip design system published in Nature in 2021
Proposed addition (new bullet after the last item):
- Following an 18-month investigation into the controversy, Nature published an addendum in September 2024 upholding the original paper's methodology and findings[1]
Rationale: The current disambiguation page mentions the controversy but not its resolution. Since Nature's investigation outcome is significant and directly related to the controversy bullet point, it provides important context for readers navigating to information about AlphaChip. Ag77777 (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Not done: This is a disambiguation page, which is the primary reason for this being really too much material. As it stood, the disambiguation page had rather long descriptions, which I've taken the liberty of trimming to be closer to how we typically handle disambiguation as well as removing links to articles other than those being disambiguated. This particular page is not the proper venue to litigate or relitigate how this should be presented. Removing the Nature reference should in its own way bring the page back into balance. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 04:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
References
Editing for clarity and neutrality
[edit]This article suddenly was expanded by based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AlphaChip (controversy) (3rd nomination) and as a result had an undue focus and tone based on the controversy. I've now made a series of edits that attempted to remove some POV-ridden SYNTH, and also to provide simpler navigation and structure. --ZimZalaBimtalk 20:00, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Agree with many of the simplifications, but disagree about the removal of the statement that other companies have not adopted this method. This is an exact parallel to the argument made by Ricursive and quoted in the paper. They claim it's used around the world, implying lots of smart people choose to use it, so it must be good. The exact opposite argument is that there are lots of smart people who could adopt it but don't, so the benefits must not be obviously superior. Either both should be included or neither should. In my personal opinion both provide information that might be useful to the reader. LouScheffer (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)