81–90 of 214 posts
[flagged]
Your comment history shows no evidence of a willingness to engage in a fair debate, and you constantly create straw-man arguments, even in this very comment. No-one is going to accept your "challenge".
Grokipedia literally just came out a few hours ago. So this article was already in the can before they could even test it.
Maybe regional roll-outs? I was reading it yesterday.
Grokipedia literally just came out a few hours ago. So this article was already in the can before they could even test it.
> Grokipedia literally just came out a few hours ago. Maybe regional roll-outs? I was reading it yesterday.
>> This is the construction of a reality production cartel that creates a parallel information ecosystem designed to codify a deeply partisan, far-right worldview as objective fact. Perhaps if Wikipedia hadn't drifted so far left (on culture war topics, it's fine for science etc), then maybe it wouldn't have been necessary. https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically...
lmao the manhattan institute
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd challenge someone to provide competing articles on a controversion topic from Wikipedia and Grokipedia and demonstrate how the Grok version is less-factual. Just because it doesn't adhere to your ideology, doesn't mean it's wrong. Yeah, it's too soon to be making claims about misinformation campaigns. The Grokpedia approach should be on the same footing as Wikipedia was when it was launched. Use it cautiously a…
I'm reacting to the top comment when I opened this thread saying that this confirm Musk is "evil". Can anyone give a coherent explanation of why the intention behind Grokipedia is... bad?
If one takes Musk at his word that his only intention is to provide an alternative Wikipedia, there is no problem; it is simply an alternative Wikipedia with a different editorial bias. If one believes that Musk is the modern day Joseph Goebbels, then his stated intention is likely false; Goebbels' strategy was to provide 60% truths and 40% lies, which is expressly facilitated with something like Wikipedia (Grokipedia in Musk's case). There are many possibilities in between the two which seem to suggest the likely fallibility of Grokipedia. All things considered, especially Musk's track record with the truth, it is reasonably assumed that this is a propaganda tool more than an education tool.
Please remember that you asked for "a coherent explanation" rather than something you will necessarily agree with. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who believes the opinions in this explanation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
How was my comment hateful? The far right is as indoctrinated as the far right. But I think most liberals don't realize how much of media is left-leaning.
The gap widens. If you're discussing something online, and someone drops a Grok link as evidence or reference material, how are you supposed to continue at that point? You can't convince someone who lives in an alternate reality of anything by argument. I think I would just stop relying. Most people would. It's not a new problem, but that wall keeps growing.
Whether it being from Grokipedia or Wikipedia does not change the approach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm reacting to the top comment when I opened this thread saying that this confirm Musk is "evil". Can anyone give a coherent explanation of why the intention behind Grokipedia is... bad?
> Can anyone give a coherent explanation of why the intention behind Grokipedia is... bad? If one takes Musk at his word that his only intention is to provide an alternative Wikipedia, there is no problem; it is simply an alternative Wikipedia with a different editorial bias. If one believes that Musk is the modern day Joseph Goebbels, then his stated intention is likely false; Goebbels' strategy was to provide 60% t…
"an alternative Wikipedia with a different editorial bias"
I think the stated goal is to reduce bias, not to just rotate it to another view. Of course some things are difficult to reduce to facts, but plenty of others are not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can anyone give a coherent explanation of why the intention behind Grokipedia is... bad? If one takes Musk at his word that his only intention is to provide an alternative Wikipedia, there is no problem; it is simply an alternative Wikipedia with a different editorial bias. If one believes that Musk is the modern day Joseph Goebbels, then his stated intention is likely false; Goebbels' strategy was to provide 60% t…
Thanks for the reply. "an alternative Wikipedia with a different editorial bias" I think the stated goal is to reduce bias, not to just rotate it to another view. Of course some things are difficult to reduce to facts, but plenty of others are not.
This is not possible.
The gap widens. If you're discussing something online, and someone drops a Grok link as evidence or reference material, how are you supposed to continue at that point? You can't convince someone who lives in an alternate reality of anything by argument. I think I would just stop relying. Most people would. It's not a new problem, but that wall keeps growing.