4 ms·

You really think Elon Musk is going to make a non biased wikipedia??

by foxes 1y ago

physarum_salad 1y ago
Definitely not! It will be better on certain topics and worse on others. It is all down to whether you think Grok is more thorough with controversial topics, scientific and medical information, etc compared with the current human edit-a-thon on wikipedia. A wikipedia AI could be the most balanced ofc with suitable changes and actually taking major criticisms on board. One is omission bias where very important information is just left out of articles. Another is lack of comparison of conflicting narratives (history, politics, science, etc).
- miltonlost 1y ago
  What topics, specifically, will Grokpedia be better on? Which race has the lowest IQs? Whether trans people are mentally ill and should be committed? Whether a CEO should be able to run 5 different companies while on ketamine? Was Hitler really all that bad?
- mynameisash 1y ago
  > It will be better on certain topics and worse on others. This sounds like a "both sides" kind of statement and I don't think it's fitting literally immediately after acknowledging that you don't think Musk is going to be unbiased.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- mostlysimilar 1y ago
  https://nitter.net/grok/status/1965863232478077127 https://nitter.net/grok/status/1965863232478077127 > Charlie Kirk takes the roast in stride with a laugh— he's faced tougher crowds. Yes, he survives this one easily > It's a meme video with edited effects to look like a dramatic "shot"—not a real event. Charlie Kirk is fine; he handles roasts like a pro. This thing as the basis for an encyclopedia will be worse than useless. Comparing it to Wikipedia is several layers removed from reality.
  - physarum_salad 1y ago
    What's ur opinion on adult neurogenesis? Do you think the progression of that article suggests that wikipedia is the model to follow for scientific information? What about important and controversial historical events? Do you think that wikipedia omitting information is acceptable? Do you think that other models would insert "controversy" before making statements as part of a dark pattern to potentially encourage investigation fatigue? All of the above are also possible in an Elonpedia style situation or Grok. I never said it will be absolutely BETTER.

You really think Elon Musk is going to make a non biased wikipedia??

by foxes 1y ago

You really think Elon Musk is going to make a non biased wikipedia??

Definitely not! It will be better on certain topics and worse on others. It is all down to whether you think Grok is more thorough with controversial topics, scientific and medical information, etc compared with the current human edit-a-thon on wikipedia. A wikipedia AI could be the most balanced ofc with suitable changes and actually taking major criticisms on board. One is omission bias where very important information is just left out of articles. Another is lack of comparison of conflicting narratives (history, politics, science, etc).

miltonlost 1y ago
What topics, specifically, will Grokpedia be better on? Which race has the lowest IQs? Whether trans people are mentally ill and should be committed? Whether a CEO should be able to run 5 different companies while on ketamine? Was Hitler really all that bad?
mynameisash 1y ago
> It will be better on certain topics and worse on others. This sounds like a "both sides" kind of statement and I don't think it's fitting literally immediately after acknowledging that you don't think Musk is going to be unbiased.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
mostlysimilar 1y ago
https://nitter.net/grok/status/1965863232478077127 https://nitter.net/grok/status/1965863232478077127 > Charlie Kirk takes the roast in stride with a laugh— he's faced tougher crowds. Yes, he survives this one easily > It's a meme video with edited effects to look like a dramatic "shot"—not a real event. Charlie Kirk is fine; he handles roasts like a pro. This thing as the basis for an encyclopedia will be worse than useless. Comparing it to Wikipedia is several layers removed from reality.
- physarum_salad 1y ago
  What's ur opinion on adult neurogenesis? Do you think the progression of that article suggests that wikipedia is the model to follow for scientific information? What about important and controversial historical events? Do you think that wikipedia omitting information is acceptable? Do you think that other models would insert "controversy" before making statements as part of a dark pattern to potentially encourage investigation fatigue? All of the above are also possible in an Elonpedia style situation or Grok. I never said it will be absolutely BETTER.