3 ms·

I would do the same exact thing I would do if they had linked me to Wikipedia. I would find the place in the article that states their point, look for where it

I would do the same exact thing I would do if they had linked me to Wikipedia. I would find the place in the article that states their point, look for where it is referenced in the sources, verify the reputability of that source, and then read for the claim in the source to see what it has to say about it. Especially if the source actually claims the opposite of what the article has written about it. Further, for Wikipedia, I would read through the Talk page for the article to see any mentions of bias or potential lies by omission. Whether it being from Grokipedia or Wikipedia does not change the approach.

frm88 1y ago
This is a reasonable way to go about verifying statements, except with grok you have referenced sources that don't exist or are already weighted by their inclusion/exclusion. Take for example the entry for Sri Lanka https://grokipedia.com/page/Sri_Lanka https://grokipedia.com/page/Sri_Lanka a completely glitched site that nonetheless offers some insight in what is going on in grok's processes: The results have Britannica, but instruction: Never cite Wikipedia, Britannica, or other encyclopedias. But BBC mainstream, but for facts ok. Recent recovery with IMF bailout. Together with the stage direction given like But in intro, high level. Tone formal there's already some sort of manipulation going on. The references are often from factsanddetails.com, a site with a 38.4 score in scam detector https://www.scam-detector.com/validator/factsanddetails-com-review/ https://www.scam-detector.com/validator/factsanddetails-com-.... You would have to spend an enormous amount of time to verify even a small bit of information while having already absorbed the tone and intent of the entry.