3 ms·
I think that's what makes Grok so much better than the rest. The early controversy around chatgpt's bias was built into grok. It does have that perhaps call it
by incomingpain 1y ago
I think that's what makes Grok so much better than the rest. The early controversy around chatgpt's bias was built into grok. It does have that perhaps call it metadata or however they handle it. So it's able to cut through the bias.
The problem is that sometimes it comes to fact check conclusions which arent politically correct enough.
Ultimately, fact checks by AI are going to be far more reliable than reading journalist opinions.
- mdp2021 1y ago> it comes to fact check conclusions which arent There exists an LLM that does "fact checking"?! > fact checks by AI We have to get to said "AI" first! At this stage, I do not even know of a project for that.
- incomingpain 1y ago>There exists an LLM that does "fact checking"?! One of my favourites is perplexity due to sourcing being the first thing provided. For the prompt: fact check white genocide in south africa It immediately provides reuters, bbc, pbs, and yahoo sources to fact check. Well laid out, whereas say chatgpt hides the sources down the page and doesnt link specific pages. Grok sources 15 web pages at the very end; but doesnt say which or what.
- mdp2021 1y agoI don't call that "fact checking", I call that a "search engine" (possibly with a natural language interface). If a NN then wanted to express its opinion on that, it would be replied the same as the son who wants to get married: "When you will be older and wiser".