4 ms·

For me, the scary moment was seeing Grokipedia show up as one of the “sources” in a random Claude query a few days ago. Even if people don’t explicitly choose t

For me, the scary moment was seeing Grokipedia show up as one of the “sources” in a random Claude query a few days ago. Even if people don’t explicitly choose to use it, poisoning the well is working.

bckr 11mo ago
“Data voids”
stingraycharles 11mo ago
Yeah I would love it if I could put in some guardrails for this type of stuff, eg never use Grokipedia or Reddit as authoritative sources (I currently put that in my personalization prompt).
- tavavex 11mo ago
  Why not Reddit? Of course, it's far from a paragon of truth, and it's getting more manipulated and overtaken by bots by the minute, but adding "reddit" to my search queries (in search engines, that is) had always been my go-to for finding answers and threads by actual people, especially if we're talking about technical advice or getting an opinion on something. It's like finding forum threads on something I'm interested in.
qcnguy 11mo ago
[flagged]
- Kye 11mo ago
  >> "For many people it's obvious" [who?][citation needed] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template%3AWho https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template%3AWho Having standards for this stuff matters even if you don't always like the result.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Word... >> "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed."
  - qcnguy 11mo ago
    Citation: go look at how many people are submitting edits to the articles. That is "many" people.
    - Kye 11mo ago
      It's not my job to provide support for your point. Examples. It's trivial to cite them if they're in the edit log.
      - qcnguy 11mo ago
        How very Wikipedian of you. Go to grokipedia.com and look at the edit log yourself. It's two clicks. If you care about truth you'll do it.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- Steltek 11mo ago
  It's very weird to assume good intentions or trustworthy info from Grokipedia but then hold up Wikipedia as "heavily poisoned". Your questions are based on a lot of assumptions that aren't widely shared.
  - flag_fagger 11mo ago
    I’m leaning paid shill tbh.
- tencentshill 11mo ago
  It's democracy (as flawed as that can be) vs. one individual billionaire's personal AI.
  - qcnguy 11mo ago
    Nothing about Wikipedia is democratic.

bckr 11mo ago

“Data voids”

stingraycharles 11mo ago

Yeah I would love it if I could put in some guardrails for this type of stuff, eg never use Grokipedia or Reddit as authoritative sources (I currently put that in my personalization prompt).

tavavex 11mo ago
Why not Reddit? Of course, it's far from a paragon of truth, and it's getting more manipulated and overtaken by bots by the minute, but adding "reddit" to my search queries (in search engines, that is) had always been my go-to for finding answers and threads by actual people, especially if we're talking about technical advice or getting an opinion on something. It's like finding forum threads on something I'm interested in.

qcnguy 11mo ago

[flagged]

Kye 11mo ago
>> "For many people it's obvious" [who?][citation needed] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template%3AWho https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template%3AWho Having standards for this stuff matters even if you don't always like the result.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Word... >> "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed."
- qcnguy 11mo ago
  Citation: go look at how many people are submitting edits to the articles. That is "many" people.
  - Kye 11mo ago
    It's not my job to provide support for your point. Examples. It's trivial to cite them if they're in the edit log.
    - qcnguy 11mo ago
      How very Wikipedian of you. Go to grokipedia.com and look at the edit log yourself. It's two clicks. If you care about truth you'll do it.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
Steltek 11mo ago
It's very weird to assume good intentions or trustworthy info from Grokipedia but then hold up Wikipedia as "heavily poisoned". Your questions are based on a lot of assumptions that aren't widely shared.
- flag_fagger 11mo ago
  I’m leaning paid shill tbh.
tencentshill 11mo ago
It's democracy (as flawed as that can be) vs. one individual billionaire's personal AI.
- qcnguy 11mo ago
  Nothing about Wikipedia is democratic.