101–110 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Cheating" is not something LLMs do, LLMs are something a human could use for cheating. But what's your point?
Tell that to the guy whose wife cheated on him with an LLM
I bet now you’d kill for a senior thesis based on my free, multilingual, publicly cited, text-based articles, motherfucker Yeeeeeeeeah.... Not if it's written in or about the Scots language. (see: https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/26/scots_wikipedia_fake/ ) (see also: that time the Scottish governmment used Scots wikipedia as a source)
I have been schooled many times on the failures of Wikipedia, why I shouldn't waste my time editing it, how the editors are toxic; but ultimately, I can't help but buy into the idea of a crowdsourced, centrally administrated, store of knowledge.
I wouldn't base critical decisions off of Wikipedia alone, but it sure helps me understand things in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone please enlighten me: what is the point of an AI-generated Wikipedia when we're all now using (Wikipedia-trained) AIs directly instead of Wikipedias?
From the wikipedia on grokipedia: "Following the public launch of Grokipedia, it was criticised for publishing false information. Wired reported that "The new AI-powered Wikipedia competitor falsely claims that pornography worsened the AIDS epidemic and that social media may be fueling a rise in transgender people." So, it's a way of Musk using AI to propagandize on a large scale.
So one part of the Musk empire is fueling a thing that another part of the Musk empire doesn't like.
Seems like the problem is in one hand, and the solution is in the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s so good. I spent 2 hours reading articles on there last night and the consistency was excellent, although a little verbose at times.
It took me less than a minute on the site to run into factually wrong information, broken citations, etc. Cannot imagine rotting my brain with knowingly bad information for over 2 hours
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokipedia
That references another article "Views of Elon Musk" ... Quite an unusual format, "views of [public figure]". I don't remember seeing anything quite like it on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_Elon_Musk
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the wikipedia on grokipedia: "Following the public launch of Grokipedia, it was criticised for publishing false information. Wired reported that "The new AI-powered Wikipedia competitor falsely claims that pornography worsened the AIDS epidemic and that social media may be fueling a rise in transgender people." So, it's a way of Musk using AI to propagandize on a large scale.
social media may be fueling a rise in transgender people So one part of the Musk empire is fueling a thing that another part of the Musk empire doesn't like. Seems like the problem is in one hand, and the solution is in the other.
I think that's a common thread with what Musk does. On one hand, his companies rely on money from the US government, then with the other he's helping firing a lot of people in the government supposedly to save money.
On one hand, he's trying to run for AGI and manage a LLM company that use vast amount of resources. On the other hand he's trying to sell electric vehicles because vast amount of resources are being used.
I guess it kind of makes sense in some way, but also he could probably better help those efforts by just stopping doing the other thing, but that probably conflicts with his other more important goals.
Wikipedia was the greatest long ago. Then anonymous partisans setup a 'source blacklist' which essentially curates all of wiki for a specific ideology. They acknowledge their systemic bias and have done nothing to fix it. Wiki deserves to give us an apology. In reality no apology needed from wiki, we just move on to what's better. Grokipedia v0.1 is out and from what I've seen it's shockingly better. Tons of improvem…
Not sure if your comment is parody or not but can you cite some examples of where Grokipedia is “shockingly better” than Wikipedia? It’s and honest question. I haven’t noticed a strong bias on Wikipedia but that may just be because the kinds of the things I look up on Wikipedia are usually not political in nature.
Lets do it on some random article that isnt political.I have aichophobia, so I'm an outside observer on this one. I will never ever ever ever have it done on me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture
>Acupuncture[b] is a form of alternative medicine[2] and a component of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in which thin needles are inserted into the body.[3] Acupuncture is a pseudoscience;[4][5] the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge,[6] and it has been characterized as quackery.[c]
So no neutrality here at all. Just straight up ideological attack. You scroll down:
>It is difficult but not impossible to design rigorous research trials for acupuncture.[69][70]
So that's some pretty strong and biased statements against a widely used procedure that they cant really make conclusions about?
https://grokipedia.com/page/Acupuncture
>Scientific evaluation reveals that while acupuncture demonstrates short-term benefits for some pain-related issues compared to no treatment, its superiority over sham procedures—such as needle insertion at non-acupoints—is often minimal or absent, suggesting effects may stem from placebo responses, expectation, or non-specific factors like counter-irritation rather than meridian-based mechanism
This is shockingly better writing.
>A 2020 Cochrane systematic review of 33 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 7,297 participants found that acupuncture, compared to no treatment or sham acupuncture, provided short-term pain relief and functional improvement for chronic nonspecific low back pain, with standardized mean differences (SMD) of -0.82 for pain versus no treatment (moderate-quality evidence) and -0.18 versus sham (low-quality evidence due to imprecision and inconsistency).[91] The
This is what I'm aware of. That acupuncture has some minimum affect on pain better than placebo. Efficacy comparable to tylenol for pain relief. Which I dont know if you know, but tylenol is extremely ineffective for pain relief.
The science says there's something to it, it's difficult to measure, and further investigation is needed. But Wiki's ideological bias is showing big time.
Especially relevant today with the release of grokipedia
I would really, really like to see the prompts used for this next to each article. Since "The Algorithm" at Twitter was supposed to be open sourced, surely that wouldn't be controversial. And I genuinely do find it absolutely fascinating and somewhat shocking how LLMs can follow such long and complex prompts and respond so well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is now more accepted as a legitimate encyclopedia To be fair, it is easily 10x better as a source than any encyclopedia, even disregarding the scope and quantity of entries. I loved Encyclopedia Britannica, and probably read the set in its entirety as a kid (nonsequentially), but it was like learning biology from Disney specials. Wikipedia is often updated and corrected by multiple experts, and importantly inclu…
I learned much of what I know by reading the set of encyclopedias someone gave my family as a gift when I was born. By the time I really got to them there were a bit out of date. What a lot of folks miss is that traditional encyclopedias ensured correctness by employing experts in various fields. Wikipedia often cites those same experts via academic papers, etc. They just don't pay those SME's money directly. If anyt…
I'll never forget EB's entry on "baby". It started with a lengthy paragraph that made a human baby sound like a horrifying, antisocial, psychotic parasite.
Yes, you feel obligated to reply with a joke about how accurate that is. Not the point.
The point is: the author was clearly a man, who didn't raise his own children, and it was unvetted by others.