4 ms·
> To some extent that was Stack Overflow Yup, that was always very much the plan, from the earliest days. Shame it soured a bit, but since the content is all f
by oneeyedpigeon 10mo ago
> To some extent that was Stack Overflow
Yup, that was always very much the plan, from the earliest days. Shame it soured a bit, but since the content is all freely reusable, maybe something can be built atop the ashes?
- __patchbit__ 10mo agoThere is https://grokipedia.com https://grokipedia.com which encourages you to suggest an article and you may submit improvements to an existing article.
- lobsterthief 10mo agoThis is _not_ at all the same thing. Grok just ripped off Wikipedia as its base and then applied a biased spin to it. Check out the entry on Grok owner Elon Musk; it praises his accomplishments and completely omits or downplays most of his better-known controversies.
- latexr 10mo agoAnd everything is “fact checked” by the Grok LLM. Which… Yeah… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_(chatbot)#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_(chatbot)#Controversies
- __patchbit__ 10mo agoThe Grok information source is more reliable than Wikipedia. Objectively and incrementally improving. The leadership behind Grok is human rated safe rocket science quality. Whereas Wikipedia is a fugly dumpsterdive.