3 ms·

It's not controlled by a trusted actor so it doesn't matter how it happens to act at the moment. They could pull the rug at any future time and its almost bett

by jayd16 1y ago

It's not controlled by a trusted actor so it doesn't matter how it happens to act at the moment. They could pull the rug at any future time and its almost better to gain trust now and cash in that trust later.

kvirani 1y ago
And the idea of it being controlled by any one entity makes it less interesting and less "good" when compared to Wikipedia
meowface 1y ago
My expectations were extremely low, as were, and are, my expectations of Grok in general. Was just making an actual devil's advocate case.
- lapcat 1y ago
  > Was just making an actual devil's advocate case. Why? We're not nominating a saint or electing a Pope. If someone has a certain opinion, they're free to argue it here. There's no need to invent imaginary opinions and pretend to advocate for them when there are so many actual HN users.
  - meowface 1y ago
    We're discussing the central sources of knowledge on the internet and by extension pretty much the epistemological backbones of present human civilization. It's worth being open to other perspectives. I, a left-leaning person who detests Elon Musk and what he's done to Twitter and who generally trusts and likes Wikipedia, feel no shame or regret in assessing Grokipedia, even if I figured it was just going to be the standard tribalistic garbage (which it indeed turned out to be).
    - lapcat 1y ago
      > It's worth being open to other perspectives. There's a big difference between listening to other perspectives and inventing other perspectives. Why not let the believers of other perspectives argue for those perspectives? Wouldn't they be the best advocates? And if nobody believes the perspective you've invented, then perhaps it wasn't worth discussing after all. Again, we're not really lacking in volume of commenters here.
      - meowface 1y ago
        Maybe "devil's advocate" was the wrong term for me to use. In this thread I am sharing only my honest beliefs and perspectives and was referring to the genuine initial willingness I had to show charitability to the concept of Grokipedia before its release.
        lapcat 1y ago
        > In this thread I am sharing only my honest beliefs and perspectives That's one of the reasons I object to the term. People often use "devil's advocate" to state their opinions while providing plausible deniability in the face of criticism of those opinions. Just be honest, stand behind your stated opinions, and take whatever heat comes from that honesty.
        cowboylowrez 1y ago
        Sure sure, but what happens if someone isn't 100 percent behind their opinions? Initial assessments for instance could very well attempt to see problems or anticipate arguments for or against particular viewpoints.
        lapcat 1y ago
        That's fine, but you should attribute your certainty or uncertainty, as the case may be, to yourself and not to "the devil." It's vastly more honest to say, "I'm not sure about this" than "Devil's advocate: blah blah blah". Besides hiding behind the devil, the devil's advocate makes the devil look more confident than he should be.

by jayd16 1y ago

kvirani 1y ago

And the idea of it being controlled by any one entity makes it less interesting and less "good" when compared to Wikipedia

meowface 1y ago

My expectations were extremely low, as were, and are, my expectations of Grok in general. Was just making an actual devil's advocate case.

lapcat 1y ago
> Was just making an actual devil's advocate case. Why? We're not nominating a saint or electing a Pope. If someone has a certain opinion, they're free to argue it here. There's no need to invent imaginary opinions and pretend to advocate for them when there are so many actual HN users.
- meowface 1y ago
  We're discussing the central sources of knowledge on the internet and by extension pretty much the epistemological backbones of present human civilization. It's worth being open to other perspectives. I, a left-leaning person who detests Elon Musk and what he's done to Twitter and who generally trusts and likes Wikipedia, feel no shame or regret in assessing Grokipedia, even if I figured it was just going to be the standard tribalistic garbage (which it indeed turned out to be).
  - lapcat 1y ago
    > It's worth being open to other perspectives. There's a big difference between listening to other perspectives and inventing other perspectives. Why not let the believers of other perspectives argue for those perspectives? Wouldn't they be the best advocates? And if nobody believes the perspective you've invented, then perhaps it wasn't worth discussing after all. Again, we're not really lacking in volume of commenters here.
    - meowface 1y ago
      Maybe "devil's advocate" was the wrong term for me to use. In this thread I am sharing only my honest beliefs and perspectives and was referring to the genuine initial willingness I had to show charitability to the concept of Grokipedia before its release.
      - lapcat 1y ago
        > In this thread I am sharing only my honest beliefs and perspectives That's one of the reasons I object to the term. People often use "devil's advocate" to state their opinions while providing plausible deniability in the face of criticism of those opinions. Just be honest, stand behind your stated opinions, and take whatever heat comes from that honesty.
        cowboylowrez 1y ago
        Sure sure, but what happens if someone isn't 100 percent behind their opinions? Initial assessments for instance could very well attempt to see problems or anticipate arguments for or against particular viewpoints.
        lapcat 1y ago
        That's fine, but you should attribute your certainty or uncertainty, as the case may be, to yourself and not to "the devil." It's vastly more honest to say, "I'm not sure about this" than "Devil's advocate: blah blah blah". Besides hiding behind the devil, the devil's advocate makes the devil look more confident than he should be.