Talk:Claude (language model)

Unrelated details

Hello everyone,

I think we should remove a couple of sentences in Claude (language model). It states:

Context: "According to the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. military used Claude in its 2026 raid on Venezuela."

Unrelated sentence: "While it isn't known to what capacity Claude was used, the operation resulted in the deaths of 83 people, 2 of which were civilians, and the capture of President Nicolás Maduro."

I removed the unrelated sentence, but another editor undid it, and said that I should get consensus on the talk page before removing it. I don't think that it is necessary for every edit, especially when removing unrelated info. That said, I would appreciate your feedback and/or support.

Another unrelated sentence: "The action was described by John Colemean of the civil liberties group FIRE as a retaliatory First Amendment issue, specifically compelled speech."

I think these sentences would be better in 2026 United States Intervention in Venezuela. They don't seem to belong in an article about Anthropic's LLMs. These sentences are focusing attention on unrelated topics and should not be here. The Conservative Journalist (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussing reverted edits is standard procedure, per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I admit I'm not the best at following this myself, but it's the norm on Wikipedia. Not every edit needs to be discussed, but this one was reverted, so here we are. Since I'm not the one who added that wording in the first place, this talk page makes more sense than my own talk page. That's generally how WP:consensus works.

For convenience, here are the sources which are currently cited for the death toll:

• Christou, William (14 February 2026). "US military used Anthropic's AI model Claude in Venezuela raid, report says". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 February 2026.
• Amrith, Ramkumar; Hagey, Keach (13 February 2026). "Pentagon Used Anthropic's Claude in Maduro Venezuela Raid". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 14 February 2026.

Per The Guardian: The US raid on Venezuela involved bombing across the capital, Caracas, and the killing of 83 people, according to Venezuela’s defence ministry. Anthropic’s terms of use prohibit the use of Claude for violent ends, for the development of weapons or for conducting surveillance.[1]

Per Al Jazeera: A total of 83 people, including 47 Venezuelan soldiers, were killed during the US special operation in Venezuela.[2]

Per Axios: No Americans were killed in the raid. Cuba and Venezuela both said dozens of their soldiers and security personnel were killed.[3]

Not all sources mention the deaths, but most sources explain that the the reason this matters at all is because Anthropic purports to be opposed to the use of AI for violence. Bombing and killing are forms of violence, so per the sources themselves, this is important context.

I have no objection to cutting the FIRE quote. I rephrased it to provide attribution and to avoid WP:WEASEL, but I don't think I did a great job and I don't think this is due weight regardless. Grayfell (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Grayfell, thank you for your reply. Good point on providing the casualty figures for why using Claude sticks out. I think the facts are not related to Claude (language model). We may place that it what used in this operation, but placing the specific details in this article just doesn't seem relevant. I'm not arguing with the well-sourced numbers or statistics, I'm just thinking we should not place the numbers in this article. A reader wanting to read about Claude will most likely feel that this is out of context; they are seeking to read about AI, not the details of the Venezuela raid. I think we should just say that it was used in the operation, linked to 2026 United States Intervention in Venezuela to read in more detail.

On the FIRE quote, I think we agree. That is definitely not needed in this article, because it is not relevant.

Thanks again for all the input. The Conservative Journalist (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

If this article were exclusively about the technical aspects of Claude as a language model, it would read more like a guidebook or fan-wiki than a general-audience encyclopedia. There are definitely readers looking for that, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Instead, the article should also include information about how/where/when/why Claude is used in the real world, and that includes these kinds of consequences. While these deaths also contextualize Anthropic's stated goals, their public image, and their PR efforts as a company, it is also context about the model itself, per these cited sources. The US government used Claude, specifically. Therefor I disagree that this is out of context. Grayfell (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright then, would you take out the FIRE quote and leave the rest? There would also be other editors who agree with me. And this statement is sort of negative on Claude and Anthropic, which might be classified as not neutral. I agree we should put that Claude was used in the operation; I only think that placing the very details and statistics is wholly unnecessary. This article is about artificial intelligience models, not about the raid. The Conservative Journalist 21:20, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the FIRE line.

As for being negative, "neutral" in Wikipedia jargon doesn't mean it cannot be "negative". If reliable sources discuss facts which reflect negatively on Clause and Anthropic, a neutral summary of those sources will also reflect negatively. For us to intentionally avoid or downplay negative information for this reason would be a form of editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks. But placing details about another topic might be seen as not good editing. It's just not good editing. We know that the operation resulted in people's death, but it is unnecessary to place the minor details. Why would we have to put the aftermath of an event that Claude helped plan? The Conservative Journalist 22:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

We cannot assume that readers will know that the operation resulted in people's deaths. Is 83 deaths and the capture of a country's leader a 'minor detail'? That's subjective. Regardless, not every reader is American or Venezuelan, and even among those who are, not all are paying attention to US or Venezuelan politics. This context was provided by sources, so including a single sentence is appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an official encyclopedia which many people trust and use daily. This is not an encyclopedia where you mess around with sarcasm. The deaths could be irrelevant because we don't know how Claude was actually involved in the operation (e.g., shipping, planning, logistics, etc.). The statement is irrelevant in context because it does not have to do with Claude directly. We know it was involved in the operation, however, we don't need statistics in the Claude (language model) article. The Conservative Journalist 15:17, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what an "official encyclopedia" means here, but I was not being sarcastic in this response. Per sources, these deaths were not minor details, and per sources, they directly explain why this incident was relevant to Claude as a model. Dismissing the death of 83 people as "statistics" is euphemistic, also. Grayfell (talk) 01:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

What is your point of stating the deaths and the capture of Venezuela's President? What are you trying to convey with this statement? I'm not trying to argue with the facts; they are quite accurate. I am trying to say, we may put that it was used in the event, but placing the number of deaths is not relevant. We have another article (2026 United States Intervention in Venezuela) for that. The Conservative Journalist 13:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

casual visitors to the article may be interested in the "statistics" (a number of actual, IRL deaths) that *whether or not* the LLM was involved, has brought discomfort to its creators.

clearly, here, 'relevance' is a matter of opinion. I am here today, for example, because of a news article I just read about claude, & I'm curious as to its capabilities, & why its makers don't want the US military to have access to it. I think the deaths in venezuela are hugely relevant to the future of their business, & that directly impacts the LLM itself.

now, can you tell us why you are so keen to remove this part of the article? if YOU find it irrelevant, scroll past. but don't mistake your opinion for a casting vote.

duncanrmi (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

You can't just say that casual visitors will be interested in the statistics. Yes, and the correct opinion is the formal one to remove this unrelated sentence. Just ask most professors or editors and they will almost always agree with me. What you think is not what is necessarily correct. Now, removal of this sentence is proper and shall be done with reason. I am keen to remove this because it is a typo which needs to be corrected. Wikipedia is not a place of jumbled paragraphs and words; it is a proper encyclopedia, meant to be neutral. The Conservative Journalist 23:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

"Widely condemned" again

Since this was redundantly copied to multiple articles the first time around, I will copy/paste and edit my own talk page comments for why I removed it:

Regarding this revert from @Iljhgtn:, the sources for this being 'widely condemned' are two pages from Reason and one from Cato. Whether or not these are properly opinion articles is relevant, but they are definitely also not 'wide'. They are closely aligned and ideologically biased sources. Per WP:REASONMAG, that outlet's news coverage is reliable for statements of fact, but 'widely condemned' isn't supported by any one source as a simple fact. This is an opinionated source being used for a subjective claim without attribution in the lead. In order to say this was "widely condemned" we would need to cite and better summarize a reliable source saying that. To cite examples of condemnation and summarize them in this way is editorializing and WP:SYNTH. Likewise, "others have stated" is improper. Attributing direct quotes to organizations, instead of the named authors of those opinions, is also sloppy. Using a primary source for a quote to support a specific opinion is also undue, here.

Additionally, there were (at least) two notable amicus briefs, not just one, as the revert suggested. Both were from groups with specific, relevant ares of interest.

We also have an entire article on this at Anthropic–United States Department of Defense dispute. Reason, Cato, etc. are not mentioned there (yet). This article seems like a poor place to explain other party's opinions about this dispute, and this makes the editorializing and due weight issues stand out more here. Per above discussions, consensus seems to be against including this level of detail in this article.

An additional issue is WP:LEADFOLLOWS and cite-clutter. The cites in the lead are different from the cites in the body, and since the injunction isn't being contested, this isn't necessary in the lead at all. Grayfell (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I also went over this one and removed "widely" from "widely condemned just now. Thanks @Grayfell. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 19:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC) WP:BE

Since Iljhgtn was blocked for sock puppetry, I've reverted. I welcome discussion from unblocked editors. Grayfell (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Knowledge cutoff field in table

Since Wikipedia isn't a catalog, is there a policy-based reason to include the 'knowledge cutoff' column in the version table? In other words, do reliable, independent sources regularly describe this detail as a defining trait in the same way as they describe the name, release date, and current status? Grayfell (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The knowledge cutoff has become less important now that models typically have access to the internet, and it's rarely covered in independent sources, so removing it from the table is justifiable. Alenoach (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I've removed it. Grayfell (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Claude Mythos

The newest and pretty Popular gatekeeped Model isn’t mentioned in the Article yet. Claude Mythos is the biggest and smartest AI model we know of Time yet so it should be mentioned in the Article. ~2026-23022-02 (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

sorry i meant isnt explained enough yet ~2026-23022-02 (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't publish original research, and isn't a platform for promotion, so we need to summarize reliable sources. Anthropic isn't reliable for how smart a model is, so we would also need independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 10 May 2026

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: Not moved. WP:SNOW. Note that an identical proposal was also SNOW closed in January. The community clearly believes that this is not the primary topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) 162 etc. (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Claude (language model) → Claude – Anthropic is one of the leading AI companies globally. Claude, their flagship product, is widely used by millions and is most commonly referred to as the AI chatbot. It should be the primary name. Their language model also holds significant long-term importance. 🐈Cinaroot   21:01, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per the previous discussion. Nomination rationale also doesn't seem to understand how primary topic works, which is either determined by usage or significance. The previous nominator argued usage because of high pageviews, but the participants decided not to take that route due to recentism concerns. 1isall (talk | contribs) 21:36, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  Out of everything listed in Claude- Claude language model is indeed the primary. And it will be for a long time 🐈Cinaroot   21:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  Again, WP:RECENTISM. I'd recommend reading the previous discussion's comments. 1isall (talk | contribs) 22:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  It would be recentism - if we did this when Claude was launched 3 years ago. Anthropic is one of the top AI companies in the world. Claude is their signature product used by millions. Claude is primary. Wikipedia should keep up.

  My request meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria.

  Claude is most used to refer to Claude AI model or chatbot.

  Claude is also significant long-term. That company and product is here to stay for many years to come. 🐈Cinaroot   23:00, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Nothing has changed since the previous RM. Wracking ^talk! 21:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per the previous discussion. The AI model is not the primary topic for Claude. O.N.R. ^(talk) 23:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  You are right. But I think it should be updated to talk about chatbots as well. 🐈Cinaroot   23:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  What about Claude AI - I think that would avoid confusion between AI model and AI assistant? @1isall @Grayfell @Old Naval Rooftops @Wracking 🐈Cinaroot   23:28, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  Not sure about this alternative title. Anyone else? 1isall (talk | contribs) 23:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - As above, this is recentism. If a new argument can be made, make it. Otherwise renominating this after only a few months, without adding anything new at all, is counterproductive. Grayfell (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose That dastardly Claude Lorrain, referred to mononymously as Claude, is stopping this primary topic grab with his longterm significance! ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  I would also oppose "Claude AI" as very much not a common name, and not even falling under WP:NATURAL. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:50, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  Issue here is that Claude is not only a language model - but also a popular chatbot. I’m trying to update the article to explain that. But it was reverted by another editor. 🐈Cinaroot   00:52, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  (Section below.) 1isall (talk | contribs) 00:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  Other languages

  Claude chatbot https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_(chatbot)

  Claude (artificial intelligence) https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_(intelligenza_artificiale)

  Claude AI https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_AI 🐈Cinaroot   01:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, also why is Claude Monet not on the dabpage? Surprised he is not on there. Kibblebrain (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  Was Monet also known mononymously as Claude? I read the article and it doesn't seem like that's the case. You can find his name at Claude (given name). 1isall (talk | contribs) 01:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  Whoops, just realized that page exists. Either way the language model hasn't proven long-term significance yet. Kibblebrain (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2026 (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.

Revert

What's wrong with this edit [4]? @Grayfell 🐈Cinaroot   00:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Several things are wrong with it.

To start, Wikipedia isn't a platform for PR, so the 'official' website is of limited use. We're not here to glaze Claude, were here to explain it impartially to a disinterested audience. Claude is a commercial product line, and a WP:EGG link to virtual assistant in the very first sentence won't help readers understand what it is or why it's encyclopedically notable.

As for the DoD stuff, there are a lot of sources for that, and has already been a lot of discussion of how this is included in the article. Instead of over-ruling all of those edits based on your own opinion, you should discuss this here, first. Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Grayfell What part of my edit is PR. It is completely neutral.

In my last edit which you reverted - I have mentioned anthropic being designated as supply chain risk. I have done so neutrally. 🐈Cinaroot   00:12, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Can someone else review this edit 🐈Cinaroot   00:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

There should not be undue focus on one controversy. I have balanced that last paragraph. 🐈Cinaroot   00:27, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Instead of immediately asking other people to back you up, try continuing this discussion.

The edit cited Anthropic.com's inane PR announcement page as the very first citation in the body of the article. If readers want to know how great Anthropic thinks Claude is, they have many options, but that's not the purpose of this article. Our goal is to neutrally summarize reliable, independent sources.

If you want to more clearly explain the virtual assistant aspect, figure out a way to do it without this kind of subtle promotional wording. If you want to add this to the very first sentence, I disagree, but better sources would be the place to start making that case.

The information about the supply chain risk you restored left out details that seem worth discussion, hence no consensus. To put it another way, it isn't more neutral just because you say it is more neutral. Grayfell (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't care if we cite that website or not. You could have just removed that citation. Why did you revert my entire edit and claimed that my content was promotional on my talk page?

Once again, you're accusing my edit of being PR-driven, but you haven’t explained what’s wrong with the content.

Its more a chatbot - than a virtual assistant - I made an error there.

About the supply chain risk - please tell me what's wrong with the edit - instead of saying its worth discussion. How did you determine there was no consensus. Just because you disagree? Do you have any rational to explain your disagreement? Please refrain from comments like it isn't more neutral just because you say it is more neutral. - instead provide some reasonable explanation 🐈Cinaroot   00:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I did try and explain what was wrong with the edit, but to respond to your comment:

You say I should've kept the changes and just removed the source. A couple of lines later you say you made an error about linking to 'virtual assistant' and should've linked to 'chatbot'. The source you added for 'virtual assistant' (which is not reliable in this context) doesn't say 'chatbot' at all. So you edited the article to add a promotional phrase favored by the company into the very beginning of the article. Regardless of your motives, this wasn't appropriate. This also appears to be WP:OR, and it misrepresents the cited source. Those are all sufficient reasons to revert and discuss. Again, this is the very first sentence of the article.

If one person agrees with a change and one person disagrees, there is no consensus.

Here is the difference in wording for the DoD paragraph of the lead:

−

US federal agencies started phasing out the use of Claude after Anthropic refused to remove contractual prohibitions on the use of Claude for mass domestic [[surveillance]] and [[Military robot|fully-autonomous weapons]]. Following the refusal, the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]] designated the company a "supply chain risk" and barred all U.S. military private contractors, suppliers, and partners from doing business with the firm. On March 26, 2026, a federal judge issued a [[Injunction|temporary injunction]] against the DoD's designation.

+

The model is used by many organizations including [[NASA]], Microsoft, Mozilla, and Norway's sovereign wealth fund. Claude has also been used in U.S. military and intelligence operations. In February 2026, the Trump administration designated Anthropic a supply chain risk and barred federal agencies from company's technology.

For a few reasons, this appears disproportionate to me. For one example, the Norway thing is a single sentence of the body with a single comparatively weak source. The role of domestic surveilance and autonomous weapons, on the other hand, have been cut for no clear reason. Adding vagueness about NASA and Mozilla as part of the same paragraph as the much, much, much better sourced info on the DoD dispute seems like it's name-dropping without providing any context. This is, again, too promotional regardless of intentions. I object to this change for those reasons. Grayfell (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I added the source to clarify that Claude is both an AI assistant (or chatbot) and a language model. I don’t care whether we use “chatbot” or “AI assistant” — they're more or less the same in this context. The cited source describes Claude as an AI assistant, so this is not original research. I simply used the company's own description. You do not get to call my edit promotional just because I linked to an official source. My goal is to make readers aware that “Claude” is the name used for both the chatbot and the language model.

The last paragraph starts by saying that federal agencies are starting to phase out the use of Claude. No- first we need to mention that Claude is used by federal governments and other companies, and then we can discuss the controversy. That approach is more balanced and neutral. We don't need to name-drop a lot of these companies - but we should mention their top clients. That's not promotional .

And yes, we should discuss Anthropic’s stance on the use of its technology for domestic surveillance. That content should not have been removed. 🐈Cinaroot   01:50, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@162 etc. Are you denying Claude is not a chatbot? What's the reason for the revert? 🐈Cinaroot   02:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I just reverted your most recent edit since, if nothing else, "a friendly, male-gendered counterpart to virtual assistants like Alexa and Siri" is not acceptable for the lead and you're basically edit warring now. So please stop and figure out how to get consensus, if possible, for the changes you want or you most likely will be blocked. Skynxnex (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Not going to revert. See ChatGPT - Claude is a chatbot as well. I'm not sure what you meant by a friendly, male-gendered counterpart to virtual assistants like Alexa and Siri 🐈Cinaroot   02:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the diff but you did move that "friendly" bit into the lead paragraph instead of the second. I somewhat disagree with that based on using Roose as a source but it should not be in the first paragraph but I'm not really in a position to argue that heavily. Skynxnex (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

That was already there in lede. I did not write that. 🐈Cinaroot   02:31, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

As I said in my most recent reply, you moved it from the second paragraph of the lead to the first diff. Which for many things on Wikipedia which are contentious matters a lot. Once this settles down I might do the effort to do a discussion/RFC to remove it since "friendly" I think isn't appropriate for Claude, let alone sourced to Roose in the lead, who isn't a sufficient expert to justify it by himself. Skynxnex (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

So you reverted because I combined two paragraphs? It does not make a lot of difference, let alone reverting it saying it’s contentious.

Do whatever you guys want. I'm out. Happy reverting. 🐈Cinaroot   02:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

It's more, to me, that it both changed the short description and combined the two paragraphs in the same edit after people had had concerns. I'm not sure why you're out after I admitted I had misread something but still expressed a less minor concern about what you had done? Skynxnex (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I made the edit after discussing with Grayfell and addressing their concern. Both @162 etc. and you reverted it without providing good reason. If there are new concerns - you both are welcome to discuss - instead of reverting - which is also disruptive and hostile. WP:DOREVERT and WP:PARTR 🐈Cinaroot   02:56, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

We follow WP:BRD. Please discuss and obtain consensus here at the talkpage before making further edits to the article. @Grayfell: 162 etc. (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Alright - I got carried away. Let's discuss. You should also use talk instead of reverting. You still haven’t provided a reason for your revert. 🐈Cinaroot   02:26, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so...

I like the idea of mentioning 'chatbot' in the lead of the article, but I really don't think it belongs in the first sentence. Claude isn't a chatbot, it's product line that is used for many chatbots. I think we can figure out how to explain this without adding confusion. Here's a rough proposal:

−

Claude is used for software development via Claude Code.

+

Claude models are used for [[chatbots]] and for [[AI-assisted software development]] via Claude Code.

This adds useful wikilinks and the source can be moved per MOS:LEADCITE

As for 'friendly', the current article has included this line for a while:

'The name Claude has been described both as a tribute to Claude Shannon, who pioneered information theory, and as a friendly, male-gendered counterpart to virtual assistants like Alexa and Siri.[2]'

I don't like it either. It's a weasel wording issue, and also I think it's undue for the lead. One issue is that there is ambiguity about why the model is named Claude: "And they named their A.I. language model Claude — which, depending on which employee you ask, was either a nerdy tribute to the 20th-century mathematician Claude Shannon or a friendly, male-gendered name designed to counterbalance the female-gendered names (Alexa, Siri, Cortana) that other tech companies gave their A.I. assistants."[5] I think this detail should be removed from the lead completely, and the bit about being 'friendly' can be put in the body, instead, with attribution and context. Grayfell (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I think "friendly" is overly promotional and in addition to your quote from the NYT article, the New Yorker article says According to company lore, Claude is partly a patronym for Claude Shannon, the originator of information theory, but it is also just a name that sounds friendly—one that, unlike Siri or Alexa, is male and, unlike ChatGPT, does not bring to mind a countertop appliance. So only saying it is "friendly" and "male" in the lead is very misleading (my guess based on my experience is that the Shannon reference is what it was originally from and the rest is backronym-esq). Your proposed edit to the first sentence in the second graph seems like an improvement as well. Skynxnex (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

People know Claude as a chatbot. It's their most popular and flagship product. Its like ChatGPT 🐈Cinaroot   03:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

LLMs, Chatbots and virtual assistants are different things. Per sources, Claude is a brand-name for a product line that uses a range of different LLMs made by Anthropic. Chatbots are not the only use of these LLMs. Claude Code is arguably not really a chatbot. Neither is Claude Design or Claude Mythos, although they have chatbot elements. Is this kind of pedantic? Yeah, sure, but this is Wikipedia, so this matters. Grayfell (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

According to the company, it’s an AI assistant and a AI model. Another source, which is a top result on Google, also supports this.

https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/claude-ai

Claude code is the name used for their coding tools. They have a command line interface as well for that.

Claude is first and foremost a chatbot or AI assistant and an AI model. It’s common knowledge. Everyone knows this. Plenty of sources support it. You haven’t proven otherwise. 🐈Cinaroot   07:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, just go to their website. https://claude.com/

Scroll to the bottom. In Products and Models - you see the distinction 🐈Cinaroot   08:21, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

As I said, Wikipedia isn't a platform for PR, so the company's own website is of limited use. "Everyone knows this" isn't a valid argument on Wikipedia. We use reliable sources, and per reliable sources, "AI assistant" and "chatbot" mean different things.

The first line of the IBM post says "Claude is a family of proprietary large language models (LLMs), as well an AI assistant and other AI tools powered by those models, developed by Anthropic."[6] While I have some problems with the IBM post as a source, what matters here is that it doesn't describe Claude as a single chatbot, or even as a line of chatbots. It barely sues the term "chatbot" at all. It cannot be used to change the article to say that Claude is a chatbot. Grayfell (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, I don't care if we say it's a chatbot or AI assistant. I wrote it modelled around a ChatGPT article. But what's inaccurate is to say Claude is an LLM only -which is a misrepresentation. 🐈Cinaroot   20:02, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

You're right. It's too confusing not to say the product line used for chatbots. I've made an attempt to rewrite the lead to address this and other concerns. I don't think the ChatGPT article is good enough to use as an example, but it does make sense to check and make sure they're roughly similar.

I've also removed the line about the name being 'friendly'. Grayfell (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

It's better. Data analysis should be removed. It's just a use-case.

Here is the issue. ChatGPT is product name of their chatbot. Whereas GPT-3.5, GPT-4 etc... is the model name

For Claude - Claude is the product name for their chatbot. Claude Opus 4.7 etc… are the models

We need to have another debate - to determine - if we should treat Claude chatbot as primary and models as secondary.

Since Claude consumer app is their most popular product. The article should be centered around that like ChatGPT 🐈Cinaroot   01:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Claude AI, generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot and supporting large language models (LLMs) developed by AI safety and research firm Anthropic AI.[7]

Claude is a highly performant, trustworthy, and intelligent AI platform built by Anthropic. Claude excels at tasks involving language, reasoning, analysis, coding, and more. [8]

Claude is a chatbot developed by AI startup Anthropic that can generate text content, including computer code, and carry on conversations with users, similar to OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini.[9]

Claude, the AI chatbot developed by Anthropic, has gone from strength to strength. It has found a niche in a very crowded market, offering smart AI functionality while prioritising safety, transparency, helpfulness, and more.[10]

Called Claude, Anthropic’s AI — a chatbot — can be instructed to perform a range of tasks, including searching across documents, summarizing, writing and coding, and answering questions about particular topics. [11]

Claude is a large language model-based chatbot, much like ChatGPT or Bing Chat. [12]

Meet Claude: Anthropic’s Rival to ChatGPT [13]

There are also sources that talks about Claude as a LLM (Because they use the same name for LLM and Chatbot) 🐈Cinaroot   02:18, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, to start with, some of those sources are not reliable, which weakens your argument here. Some of those source you cite are also selective. For example, Tom's Guide link also says: At its core, Claude is a large language model (LLM) trained on massive datasets.[14] It makes sense that a Wikipedia article would attempt to explain something 'at it's core', so this seems more relevant than the part casually calling it a chatbot.

Regardless, for now, the article's title is Claude (language model). A discussion about the name of the article makes sense, but the article's title determines the article's topic. To put it another way, we cannot write an article about what we wish the title was.

A related issue is that 'chatbot' can be used as a synecdoche for LLMs (this issue comes up in software a lot for some reason). That's why Tom's Guide can use both LLM and Chatbot interchangeably in the same article.

Here's my interpretation: Lots of frontends can switch between different sets of LLMs, but 'Claude' isn't one of those. It cannot exist as a chatbot without the Claude LLMs. Therefore, at its core, it is the set of LLMs, not the chatbot.

I'm not married to this interpretation, though. Like I said, if you think the article should be renamed, I'd like to hear why. Grayfell (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

See Google Gemini. Claude was first released as a chatbot powered by the Claude 1 LLM, which explains the confusion and why article was written as a language model. However, it should be named Claude (chatbot) since that's what most people associate with the name Claude. The Claude app is a widely-used consumer product, and the product itself should take naming priority over the underlying model. We can explain the models in the same article. That's not a problem. See ChatGPT

However - article needs some work before we can do that. 🐈Cinaroot   03:58, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually - maybe we should rename as Claude AI - instead of chatbot. I don't know. Its hard 🐈Cinaroot   04:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Or just keep as is. Anyway. I achieved my main goal. 🐈Cinaroot   04:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

https://www.anthropic.com/news/introducing-claude

If you read their first release announcement - it was released as the AI assistant or chatbot 🐈Cinaroot   06:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Grayfell You have a history of reverting on this page. See WP:OWN

My updates are correct. Please stop reverting. Other editors who reverted - hasn't provided any good reasons. At this point - it's your opinion against mine. 🐈Cinaroot   13:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

If you revert my edit one more time - I will take the matter to ANI. 🐈Cinaroot   13:51, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you really think your own behavior will hold up to scrutiny? Per WP:EW: Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense, so it does not matter that you believe your edits were correct. You still need to gain consensus for these changes. I have already explained multiple times that Wikipedia is not a PR service, so we do not repeat Anthropic's public relations about its own commercial products. Grayfell (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, there is no PR. I've stated a fact that is undeniable. You do not get to edit war to maintain the status quo. If you revert that change again, we can settle the matter at AN. If anyone else agrees with you, feel free to revert. 🐈Cinaroot   18:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Here's the recent history of the article: You made a change which was reverted three times by three different editors. After a day and a bit of discussion, I made an edit as a compromise in an attempt to address your concerns, but you restored your preferred wording anyway, including incorrect grammar, based on a press release from the company itself. How do you think the admin noticeboards are going to react to that? Grayfell (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Press release is supported by other RS - some of which I already provided. The two editors who reverted me - one has admitted they made a mistake and the second one hasn’t participated in the discussion - other than saying you need to get consensus. You cannot get consensus if they don’t participate. Just leave it alone, please. It’s not productive to fight over this unnecessary. Do not revert people without good reason. You also agreed to include chatbot in lede. There is nothing wrong with my wording. Your reasons to revert me (Thats its PR) is simply inadequate and continued reverting is disruptive and I will make that case if needed. Yes i made some grammar mistakes. Just fix it- not revert it 🐈Cinaroot   20:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

References

Splitting proposal

We should discuss whether Claude is primarily an LLM or a chatbot.

Sources describe it as both a chatbot and an LLM. Confusion arose because Claude launched its chatbot and first LLM under the same name, i.e., Claude (unlike ChatGPT). Recently, models have had their own names, like Mythos, Sonnet, Opus, etc .

Based on the consensus, the article should be renamed to either:

Claude (Chatbot)

Claude (AI), based on https://claude.ai

Claude is a consumer-facing app used by millions (available on desktop and phones), and I think that is what most people would think of when they hear "Claude." Claude models are now referred to by their specific model names rather than simply "Claude."

Since this article talks about models and their products, I support renaming it to Claude (AI). 🐈Cinaroot   08:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

It's two separate things with the same name, like Google Gemini and Gemini (language model). Claude the language model is to Claude the chatbot what iOS is to an iPhone.

We could probably split this article into two like the articles for Gemini. One article (Claude (chatbot)) would cover the chatbot itself, while the other (Claude (language model)) would cover the individual versions of the LLM (Opus, Sonnet, Haiku, Mythos, etc.) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah - much better idea. 🐈Cinaroot   20:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - splitting would significantly increase the maintenance work, and there would likely be a lot of overlap between the two articles. Moreover, while the distinction between LLM and chatbot may be clear to us, it is not for most of the readers who land on this page trying to learn what Claude is. For them, having one comprehensive, better-maintained article is probably better. Alenoach (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you have a point. Would you support a rename to Claude AI? 🐈Cinaroot   04:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the fact that it's a vague name may actually be a good thing here, because it's sufficiently broad to cover the LLMs, the chatbot and other user interfaces or agents. And it's very concise. "Claude (AI)" is probably a little better since "Claude AI" isn't an official name. I would support a renaming to "Claude (AI)". "Claude (Anthropic)" could also be an option. Alenoach (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Claude (AI) is my original proposal 🐈Cinaroot   06:36, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose split, per Alenoach. The article is already a pain to maintain, if we're going to create more work, it would have to be for a much better reason. As for a rename, I oppose "Claude AI" as that isn't the WP:COMMONNAME, but "Claude (AI)" has potential. Grayfell (talk) 06:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not entirely sure if it's a good idea to use "AI" with no qualifiers because that's a very common marketing buzzspeak practice that conflates "LLM" with "AI". See User:Altoids0/Call them LLMs. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Good point. Grayfell (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ai

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ai?q=AI

https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=ai

AI is Artificial intelligence. According to oxford - The earliest known use of the noun AI is in the 1960s.

It’s not a marketing term. Even if it is - nothing wrong with that. It’s in the English dictionary. Now we have a new word. People create new words. Words evolve. Now it’s part of people's vocabulary. Its not collusion like Altoids0 is claiming 🐈Cinaroot   19:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The point that Altoids0 is making is that "AI" refers to a broad field of science and engineering characterized by the demonstration of intelligent behavior by machines, not "a program that uses neural networks to generate stuff". Not all AI is generative AI. Generative AI is just the most popular right now by far. The reason that Merriam-Webster even includes the definition a program or set of programs developed using tools (such as machine learning and neural networks) and used to generate content, analyze complex patterns (as in speech or digital images), or automate complex tasks is because ChatGPT and LLMs in general have "sucked all the air out of the room". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Using "AI" as a synonym for "ChatGPT" or "LLM-powered chatbots" is marketing. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Understood. Claude (GenAI) maybe a better option then. But AI is just a common name for GenAI - I don’t mind using it. 🐈Cinaroot   20:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, Claude (AI) is better because of WP:NATURAL and WP:CONCISE. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I also oppose the split, and furthermore think that Claude (AI) makes more sense if the split is not to occur, since now we are combining both the chatbot and the model information, and AI is a good enough umbrella term for both. Drivingdownthe401 (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, using the term "AI" is fine. Arguably, other terms like "GenAI" or "LLM" sound more industry-friendly, but avoiding any such connotation should not be the focus of the discussion, let's refocus on finding a clear name that describes well the content of the article. Alenoach (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Cinaroot. The discussion Talk:Claude_(language_model)#Splitting_proposal is getting stale, and people are mostly opposed to splitting the article. But there is probably enough support for a renaming to "Claude (AI)". Maybe we should open a formal move request (with the {{subst:Requested move}})? Alenoach (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I requested to close the proposal. I think the closer can move the page from this split proposal. I don’t want to waste people’s time with a new requested move. We have consensus to move the page 🐈Cinaroot   21:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

4269_Republics.png

Claude 4.6 deploys the discrete split line algorithm: 4,269 census block group congressional districts (in lieu of states, the apportionment acts of 1911 and 1929 notwithstanding), ideal population 77,641 each. Each "House state" is a republic, and gerrymandering mathematically precluded. Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER), Metric Geometry and Gerrymandering Group (MGGG), gerrychain, geopandas, pygris, matplotlib (a Markov chain variant), and networkx were independently called up by the 100+ page prompt to write a Python 3 program to generate this chloropleth map.

If this chloropleth map isn't a good example of Claude's capabilities, I don't know what is. The prompt is more than a hundred pages, perhaps 120. kencf0618 (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that this image is appropriate, and the description is too confusing and doesn't clearly explain what this is or why it matters to the topic. Do any reliable sources say this is a 'good example'? The article should cite reliable, independent sources indicate to readers why any particular image is an informative example. We don't publish OR, and that applies to images as well.

I see you've also added this image and caption to Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing. Claude's output is not a reliable source. Again, you would need to cite a reliable source, but even so... The use of this image fails WP:AI-IMAGES. Being made via a long prompt doesn't make the source reliable. This image is also unlikely to be useful to anyone without context, and that context would have to come from a published source. Grayfell (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I reverted you once, and I agree with Grayfell. I have no idea how does this image help anyone to understand anything about Claude. LLMs can generate code, and code can be used to create an image - the map should illustrate it, right? Artem.G (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

In this wise File:Claude chatbot example screenshot.webp is output from Claude and cites no references. Would this sonnet generated by Claude about Wikipedia be kosher? In any case I concur that any examples of its out which illustrates the article has to follow Wikipedia policy, yadda-yadda-yadda. After all,

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

No single hand has shaped this sprawling hall,

where strangers heap their knowledge, brick on brick —

a surgeon edits next to a maverick,

a child corrects what scholars miscall.

No king commissioned it, no patron's fee

ordained its scope; it simply grew, and grew,

past every border, tongue, and revenue,

the largest book that no one meant to be.

And yet for all its noise and raw dispute,

its edit wars, its vandals, its decay,

it holds more truth than any single mute

authority could marshal in a day.

 Strange monument to what our species knows:

 a commons built on everything it owes.

kencf0618 (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

P.S. I am continuing this discussion on the Talk page of Large Language Models given the issues raised. kencf0618 (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

For future reference, this is at Wikipedia talk:Large language models#AI to Illustrate AI, e.g. Itself (and not at Talk:Large language model). Grayfell (talk) 07:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

References