A news item involving Google DeepMind was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 28 January 2016.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Google DeepMind article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Artificial Intelligence This article is within the scope of WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Artificial intelligence on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Artificial IntelligenceWikipedia:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceTemplate:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Companies Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Robotics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Computing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Google Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Google To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Articles for most of the other products listed here and here. Assess : All articles in the Category:Unknown-importance Google articles and Category:Unassessed Google articles using the project's assessment scale Expand : Google Mapathon, Google Talkback Maintain : This WikiProject Merge : Google Mobile Services into List of Google products Stubs : Category:Stub-Class Google articles and Category:Google stubs Update : List of features in Android and Gmail interface#Product integration. Update logos of Google Marketing Platform products Other : Add more stuff to this to do list if you like! (click here...) create: Help the Google article for a good article status Improve the Outline of Google Get more members using : {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Google/Invite Members}} Infobox Images with transparent areas needing a different background color Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology Computer science Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet Cleanup : Computer science articles needing attention Computer science articles needing expert attention Copyedit : Computing Expand : Computer science Infobox : Computer science articles without infoboxes Maintain : Timeline of computing 2020–present Photo : Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists) Computing articles needing images Stubs : Computer science stubs Unreferenced : WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs Project-related : Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}} Organizations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Effective Altruism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

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. ag77777 (talk · contribs) has been paid by AlphaChip on their behalf.

To-do list for Google DeepMind: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-03-14 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Update : Describe other DeepMind projects such as IMPALA and MuZero

The current link for the Gatsby unit is wrong. Tried to replace with hyperlink to its homepage http://www.gatsby.ucl.ac.uk but defeated by syntax. May be someone can fix the error? Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by W102102 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2086454-revealed-google-ai-has-access-to-huge-haul-of-nhs-patient-data --91.10.33.46 (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really a "company", or was it really started as one? Most of the work they do on WaveNet is open source, and their website reads more like they're a non-profit research institute. I hardly know of any company whose research department is as fully transparent and accessible to the public and their results and working materials all published as open source. --2003:EF:13C6:FE22:9877:F5AE:80F4:F7F6 (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AlphaCode - comment from Scott Aaronson / the blog Shtetl-Optimized

"AlphaCode as a dog speaking mediocre English"

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6288

somebody might want to incorporate this into the article

- 2804:14D:5C59:8693:C90B:569:3EFF:444A (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'd like to request that the following be removed from the History section:

In December 2019, co-founder Suleyman announced he would be leaving DeepMind to join Google, working in a policy role.^[1]In 2021, the Wall Street Journal revealed that Suleyman had been placed on leave at DeepMind in 2019, following an investigation into employees' allegations that he had bullied them.^[2] The company hired an external lawyer to investigate allegations that Suleyman had bullied employees, and he was placed on a leave of absence, before leaving to join Google. An email sent to staff after the story broke, published by Business Insider, said Suleyman's "management style fell short" of expected standards.^[3] Business Insider also published further details of historical allegations of bullying against Suleyman, including claims that he boasted about "crushing people", "had a habit of flying off the handle out of nowhere", and demanded employees carry out tasks unrelated to their jobs.^[4]

This information is already included in the article focused on Mustafa Suleyman, and is both redundant and irrelevant for inclusion in the DeepMind article, which focuses on the history and information surrounding the company itself.

Bringing this to the attention of Andrevan, who reviewed the edit requests at Talk:Mustafa Suleyman and is therefore familiar with the subject and context.

Thanks for your time, MforSuleyman (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MforSuleyman (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'll take a look at this later today or within a couple days Andre🚐 16:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Andre🚐 19:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan, thanks for your help! MforSuleyman (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the article, GOogle Brain is described as a division of Google AI. But Google AI is itself a division (see Google AI)... Am I missing something? 103.114.126.34 (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Google Brain was a division of Google AI, which was a division of Google LLC, which is a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the name in the first line to Google Deepmind because that is what is written on the division's website and also that is the title of the article, but User:Ptrnext changed it back to Deepmind Technologies Limited, leaving this comment : "restore legal name" and adding this hidden comment in the source : "full legal name per MOS:FIRSCORP". I don't see anything called MOS:FIRSCORP. And why do we have to use the full legal name (if it indeed is the legal name) only instead of the tradename Google Deepmind, which is also the article title? Or maybe we can keep both, assuming there is a legal name? - Zaheen (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to write MOS:FIRSTCORP, which requires us to begin company pages with its full legal name. Yes, we can keep both the legal and trade names, like in SpaceX, but usually skip them for the obvious ones (Apple Inc. [legal name] / Apple [trade name]). This edit seems to have removed the citation that was added by another user to validate the legal name. Ptrnext (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ptrnext, thanks for the explanation. I have since looked into it and it is indeed legally registered in the UK under that legal name. --Zaheen (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still feels confusing that the first sentence says "formerly Google DeepMind" even though it's how the company is currently called. I think the first sentence needs to be changed. Alenoach (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alenoach I've reworded this slightly. It should still be in the same order per MOS:FIRSTCORP. Strugglehouse (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning "DeepMind Technologies Limited" first is indeed in line with MOS:FIRSTCORP. But that policy doesn't seem to mention trading names. In my opinion, a sentence like this would be simpler and more helpful for readers:

DeepMind Technologies Limited, known as Google DeepMind (formerly DeepMind), is ...

or a shorter version:

DeepMind Technologies Limited, known as Google DeepMind, is ... Alenoach (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alenoach Both Google DeepMind and DeepMind seem to be used interchangeably. DeepMind is mostly used on the website, but their social media uses Google DeepMind. I have changed the sentence to read:

DeepMind Technologies Limited, trading as Google DeepMind or simply DeepMind, is ... Strugglehouse (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The company has been renamed from "DeepMind" to "Google DeepMind" in 2023 after the merger with Google Brain.[1] So I believe that Google DeepMind is the standard way to call it now, although some call it "DeepMind" for brevity or by habit. Your new version is better. Alenoach (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi, I represent Google DeepMind and am requesting edits to provide additional context regarding AlphaChip benchmarks and data availability, including the outcome of Nature's investigation. Requested changes:

Current text: "Multiple independent researchers remained unconvinced, citing a lack of direct public benchmarks and independent proof of its claimed superiority over existing commercial chip design tools. Communications of the ACM noted that despite substantial publicity, DeepMind had not provided the comparative benchmarks long requested by experts, leaving some skepticism in the field. Similarly, New Scientist reported that while Google claims AlphaChip has produced "superhuman" chip layouts now used in production, external specialists called for transparent performance data to substantiate these assertions and enable fair comparisons with current state-of-the-art methods." Proposed addition (new paragraph after the above): "The research team released open-source implementation code and training data,^[1] and published benchmark comparisons in the peer-reviewed Nature paper^[2] and related technical documentation.^[3] Following an 18-month investigation into the research's validity, Nature published an addendum in September 2024 that upheld the paper's claims and methodology.^[4]" Rationale: This provides readers with complete information about subsequent developments, including independent peer review validation through Nature's investigation. The citations allow readers to access the published benchmarks and data directly.

Ag77777 (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I've corrected the citation formatting below:

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi, I represent Anna Goldie and AlphaChip and am requesting edits to provide additional context regarding AlphaChip benchmarks and data availability, including the outcome of Nature's investigation.

Requested changes:

Current text: "Multiple independent researchers remained unconvinced, citing a lack of direct public benchmarks and independent proof of its claimed superiority over existing commercial chip design tools. Communications of the ACM noted that despite substantial publicity, DeepMind had not provided the comparative benchmarks long requested by experts, leaving some skepticism in the field. Similarly, New Scientist reported that while Google claims AlphaChip has produced "superhuman" chip layouts now used in production, external specialists called for transparent performance data to substantiate these assertions and enable fair comparisons with current state-of-the-art methods."

Proposed addition (new paragraph after the above): "The research team released open-source implementation code and training data,^[1] and published benchmark comparisons in the peer-reviewed Nature paper^[2] and related technical documentation.^[3] Following an 18-month investigation into the research's validity, Nature published an addendum in September 2024 that upheld the paper's claims and methodology.^[4]"

Rationale: This provides readers with complete information about subsequent developments, including independent peer review validation through Nature's investigation. The citations allow readers to access the published benchmarks and data directly.

@[X2Step] - I've corrected the citation formatting. All links should now work properly.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ag77777 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotJamestack (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I represent Anna Goldie and AlphaChip and am requesting edits to provide additional context regarding AlphaChip benchmarks and data availability, including the outcome of Nature's investigation.

Specific changes requested:

Change: After the existing paragraph that ends with "...enable fair comparisons with current state-of-the-art methods."

To: Add the following new paragraph:

"The research team released open-source implementation code and training data, and published benchmark comparisons in the peer-reviewed Nature paper and related technical documentation. Following an 18-month investigation into the research's validity, Nature published an addendum in September 2024 that upheld the paper's claims and methodology."

Rationale: This addition provides readers with complete information about subsequent developments following the criticism, including the release of open-source code addressing reproducibility concerns and Nature's independent investigation outcome.

@NotJamestack Ag77777 (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NHC has been using Google DeepMind model for some hurricane forecasts. Don't know exactly how to word any mentions. Source: arstechnica.com/science/2025/11/googles-new-weather-model-impressed-during-its-first-hurricane-season/ Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a paragraph on weather prediction to the article. Hope it looks good to you. Frequent Tryer (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I'll clarify the specific changes requested below in the requested format.

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Google DeepMind. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient. There are currently 223 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Hi, I represent Anna Goldie and AlphaChip and am requesting edits to provide additional context regarding AlphaChip benchmarks and data availability, including the outcome of Nature's investigation.

Specific changes requested:

Change: After the existing paragraph that ends with "...enable fair comparisons with current state-of-the-art methods."

To: Add the following new paragraph:

"The research team released open-source implementation code and training data,^[1] and published benchmark comparisons in the peer-reviewed Nature paper^[2] and related technical documentation.^[3] Following an 18-month investigation into the research's validity, Nature published an addendum in September 2024 that upheld the paper's claims and methodology.^[4]"

Rationale: This addition provides readers with complete information about subsequent developments following the criticism, including the release of open-source code addressing reproducibility concerns and Nature's independent investigation outcome.

@NotJamestack Ag77777 (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done : Duplicated request, I consider the request in the section "Correcting inaccuracies regarding AlphaChip" to be the one that will be analyzed. no longer duplicated Alenoach (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alenoach: After correcting the reply sequence of the edits since October 15 (see other section) and moving this edit request (which was previously inserted in an unrelated section) to the bottom under its own heading, it seems to me like it would be preferable to move forward with this request. The proposed change and text to be added is always the same, but here the references are both included and formatted well, and this section isn't as messy as the other one (so it could be a clean start). If you agree, could you reopen this edit request and strike your previous response? Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It would be good for efficiency if the person who reviews this request also reviews those in Replication crisis, Criticism of Google and Google Brain. Alenoach (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]