4 ms·
I'll spell out the argument: Wikipedia is fine for uncontroversial facts. The obscure ones can have individual mistakes but it's generally correct. For contro
by BurningFrog 7mo ago
I'll spell out the argument:
Wikipedia is fine for uncontroversial facts. The obscure ones can have individual mistakes but it's generally correct.
For controversial topics, it's an eternal battle between factions of "volunteers" trying to present their view of a conflict. The articles reflect which side has the best organized influencer operations. Factual truth may or may not shine through, but as a side effect, not a result of the governing process.
Grokipedia operates by Grok writing what it considers the true and interesting facts. That doesn't mean it's always right, but it's a model far less influenced by influencer operations.
I wildly disagree with the critique based on the wealth of the top executive. I care about the truth and quality of the articles.
- vharuck 7mo ago>Grokipedia operates by Grok writing what it considers the true and interesting facts. That doesn't mean it's always right, but it's a model far less influenced by influencer operations. If Grok is trained on a corpus of information written by humans trying to influence other humans, and it has no ability to perform its own original investigation in the real world, then how can it be anything but the product of influence?
- BurningFrog 7mo agoThis seems based on the myth that Grok is trained solely on X/Twitter posts and Mein Kampf. In reality, Grok is trained on pretty much the same giant web crawl/text corpus as other contemporary AIs.
- defrost 7mo agoSure, it's just weighted more toward X-corpus and Mein Kampf.