5 ms·

You can select text, and send factual errors to be fixed. If you found something wrong in that article you should submit some fixes.

cozzyd 1y ago
eh that requires making an account, which I'd prefer not to.
- andsoitis 1y ago
  You won’t even do that to correct the apartheid apologetics that you pointed out?
  - fragmede 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - rsynnott 1y ago
    I mean, given who runs it, one would assume the apartheid apologetics are by design. I can think of few things more pointless than trying to correct Musk’s safe space.
  - croes 1y ago
    Who decides which fixes will be used? Seems unlikely that you or I could correct anything.
  - LexiMax 1y ago
    If someone disagrees with the mission of Grokipedia, not contributing is the correct play.
measurablefunc 1y ago
Why would you do free work for a company which is planning to profit from your labor? Wikipedia/Wikimedia is a non-profit. All of their money pays for real expenses instead of whatever vanity project Musk has decided is necessary to sell xAI to the masses.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  Do you think Wikimedia doesn't profit off of the contributions people make to Wikipedia? >pays for real expenses Only a small percentage of donations do. >instead of whatever vanity project Anytime the topic of Wikimedia donations come up you will see people complaining about their vanity projects too, wishing they could donate towards wikipedia itself.
  - dzhiurgis 1y ago
    This. They could use some competition for sure. Spending billions on simple html website doesn't make any sense.
  - measurablefunc 1y ago
    If you are happy to work for a for-profit corporation w/o any financial compensation then you are more than welcome to do that. Seems a bit irrational to me but that's just my opinion.
    - charcircuit 1y ago
      To me it's no worse than working for a "nonprofit" without financial compensation.
    - NedF 1y ago
      [dead]
    - filoleg 1y ago
      > If you are happy to work for a for-profit corporation w/o any financial compensation then you are more than welcome to do that. Seems a bit irrational to me but that's just my opinion. Not the person you are replying to, and it is a bit tangential, but you just basically described a solid chunk of open-source software work. I am not mocking open-source software work, I am mocking how reductionist the parent comment was, because their logic often applies to volunteer open-source software work as well. And, I suspect, on HN we can agree that volunteer open-source software work can often be worth doing, regardless of how "irrational" it is or how much for-profit corporations could benefit from it.
solid_fuel 1y ago
> If you found something wrong in that article you should submit some fixes. Why? This site isn't run by people who are interested in factual accuracy. If they think Wikipedia articles are inaccurate, they could always propose changes and have a proper discussion with the rest of the contributors. Grok was trained on Wikipedia so realistically this is just a jumbled regurgitation of Wikipedia articles blended with other sources from across the web without the usual source vetting process that Wikipedia uses. This is a politically motivated side project being run by the worlds richest man, and frankly I doubt many people are interested in helping him create his own padded version of reality.
- yawboakye 1y ago
  the pursuit of truth doesn’t work by keeping so-called falsehoods up while a debate rages on about their veracity. especially given that there’s no indication on wikipedia of contested facts. i may not be involved in the debate but i’d love some indication and perhaps a hyperlink to where the debate is happening. the proper discussion you want will never happen. it’s an exercise in persuasion ie trying to move people from one entrenched position to another, and there’s nothing more impossible than that. the only way out is to offer competition, and that’s what grokipedia seems to be doing. check the history of christianity, heresy, reformation. when the catholic church set itself up as the object to be won over persuasively it successfully stifled doctrinal progress. until the intolerants exited.
  - solid_fuel 1y ago
    > i may not be involved in the debate but i’d love some indication and perhaps a hyperlink to where the debate is happening. Are you familiar with Wikipedia at all? Here, for anyone who is unfamiliar, let's take a look at an example page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid - this is guaranteed to have controversial ongoing discussions given the political climate. Note how at the top of the page right now there are two large boxes discussing ongoing changes to the article - one indicating that it is considered too long, and another indicating that some of the content is being split into a separate draft [0] page. Both of these boxes include links to the relevant pages and policies. The first box, indicating that the article is too long and drifting off topic, includes a direct link to the Talk page [1]. Note that this page is also linked at the top of the article, and that goes for every single article on wikipedia. That talk page is where the proper discussion that I want happens - out in the open. Note that you can even reply to talking points without needing an account. Note that replies and criticisms are reproduced and readable directly on the page. This is what open collaboration and truth seeking looks like. "Grokipedia" requires you to create an account and funnel a suggested correction into an black box. It's the equivalent of a suggestions box in an HR office. On wikipedia, the discussion is out in the open, while the grok version just says "Fact checked by Grok" at the top, like we're supposed to blindly trust that. Which of these is modeling open collaboration, and which of these is just deferring to priest grok, again? The grok page gives no indication that alternative interpretations exist, they don't show any indication that sections are being criticized as inaccurate. Comparing Wikipedia to the catholic church like this is divorced from reality, doubly so in comparison to this grok project. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:History_of_South_Africa_(1948%E2%80%931994) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:History_of_South_Africa_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apartheid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apartheid
rsynnott 1y ago
Why on earth would anyone do free work for Elon Musk, of all people?
- esalman 1y ago
  Clout.
  - JohnFen 1y ago
    What clout?
    - esalman 1y ago
      Have you opened twitter recently?
      - JohnFen 1y ago
        No, why do you ask?
  - GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
    With whom? “Big Balls”?

cozzyd 1y ago

eh that requires making an account, which I'd prefer not to.

andsoitis 1y ago
You won’t even do that to correct the apartheid apologetics that you pointed out?
- fragmede 1y ago
  [flagged]
- rsynnott 1y ago
  I mean, given who runs it, one would assume the apartheid apologetics are by design. I can think of few things more pointless than trying to correct Musk’s safe space.
- croes 1y ago
  Who decides which fixes will be used? Seems unlikely that you or I could correct anything.
- LexiMax 1y ago
  If someone disagrees with the mission of Grokipedia, not contributing is the correct play.

measurablefunc 1y ago

Why would you do free work for a company which is planning to profit from your labor? Wikipedia/Wikimedia is a non-profit. All of their money pays for real expenses instead of whatever vanity project Musk has decided is necessary to sell xAI to the masses.

charcircuit 1y ago
Do you think Wikimedia doesn't profit off of the contributions people make to Wikipedia? >pays for real expenses Only a small percentage of donations do. >instead of whatever vanity project Anytime the topic of Wikimedia donations come up you will see people complaining about their vanity projects too, wishing they could donate towards wikipedia itself.
- dzhiurgis 1y ago
  This. They could use some competition for sure. Spending billions on simple html website doesn't make any sense.
- measurablefunc 1y ago
  If you are happy to work for a for-profit corporation w/o any financial compensation then you are more than welcome to do that. Seems a bit irrational to me but that's just my opinion.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    To me it's no worse than working for a "nonprofit" without financial compensation.
  - NedF 1y ago
    [dead]
  - filoleg 1y ago
    > If you are happy to work for a for-profit corporation w/o any financial compensation then you are more than welcome to do that. Seems a bit irrational to me but that's just my opinion. Not the person you are replying to, and it is a bit tangential, but you just basically described a solid chunk of open-source software work. I am not mocking open-source software work, I am mocking how reductionist the parent comment was, because their logic often applies to volunteer open-source software work as well. And, I suspect, on HN we can agree that volunteer open-source software work can often be worth doing, regardless of how "irrational" it is or how much for-profit corporations could benefit from it.

solid_fuel 1y ago

> If you found something wrong in that article you should submit some fixes. Why? This site isn't run by people who are interested in factual accuracy. If they think Wikipedia articles are inaccurate, they could always propose changes and have a proper discussion with the rest of the contributors. Grok was trained on Wikipedia so realistically this is just a jumbled regurgitation of Wikipedia articles blended with other sources from across the web without the usual source vetting process that Wikipedia uses. This is a politically motivated side project being run by the worlds richest man, and frankly I doubt many people are interested in helping him create his own padded version of reality.

yawboakye 1y ago
the pursuit of truth doesn’t work by keeping so-called falsehoods up while a debate rages on about their veracity. especially given that there’s no indication on wikipedia of contested facts. i may not be involved in the debate but i’d love some indication and perhaps a hyperlink to where the debate is happening. the proper discussion you want will never happen. it’s an exercise in persuasion ie trying to move people from one entrenched position to another, and there’s nothing more impossible than that. the only way out is to offer competition, and that’s what grokipedia seems to be doing. check the history of christianity, heresy, reformation. when the catholic church set itself up as the object to be won over persuasively it successfully stifled doctrinal progress. until the intolerants exited.
- solid_fuel 1y ago
  > i may not be involved in the debate but i’d love some indication and perhaps a hyperlink to where the debate is happening. Are you familiar with Wikipedia at all? Here, for anyone who is unfamiliar, let's take a look at an example page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid - this is guaranteed to have controversial ongoing discussions given the political climate. Note how at the top of the page right now there are two large boxes discussing ongoing changes to the article - one indicating that it is considered too long, and another indicating that some of the content is being split into a separate draft [0] page. Both of these boxes include links to the relevant pages and policies. The first box, indicating that the article is too long and drifting off topic, includes a direct link to the Talk page [1]. Note that this page is also linked at the top of the article, and that goes for every single article on wikipedia. That talk page is where the proper discussion that I want happens - out in the open. Note that you can even reply to talking points without needing an account. Note that replies and criticisms are reproduced and readable directly on the page. This is what open collaboration and truth seeking looks like. "Grokipedia" requires you to create an account and funnel a suggested correction into an black box. It's the equivalent of a suggestions box in an HR office. On wikipedia, the discussion is out in the open, while the grok version just says "Fact checked by Grok" at the top, like we're supposed to blindly trust that. Which of these is modeling open collaboration, and which of these is just deferring to priest grok, again? The grok page gives no indication that alternative interpretations exist, they don't show any indication that sections are being criticized as inaccurate. Comparing Wikipedia to the catholic church like this is divorced from reality, doubly so in comparison to this grok project. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:History_of_South_Africa_(1948%E2%80%931994) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:History_of_South_Africa_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apartheid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apartheid

rsynnott 1y ago

Why on earth would anyone do free work for Elon Musk, of all people?

esalman 1y ago
Clout.
- JohnFen 1y ago
  What clout?
  - esalman 1y ago
    Have you opened twitter recently?
    - JohnFen 1y ago
      No, why do you ask?
- GuinansEyebrows 1y ago
  With whom? “Big Balls”?