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.
“Data voids”
Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
41–50 of 165 posts
Re: Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
#42Why would anyone trust Elon Musk with anything having to do with AI? Just last week he was caught tuning Grok to say positive things about him, something Grok took so seriously that it said Elon would be the best piss drinker in the world, and it put Elon Musk in the top 3 of every human category, from philosophy to boxing to basketball. If he can’t pass up the temptation to put his foot on that scale, why would you…
> why would you trust anything generated by an LLM under his control?
Why stop with him?
Re: Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
#43I've started including a prompt for my AIs instructing them to completely avoid Grokipedia and any results derived therefrom unless otherwise instructed by me.
Re: Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
#44I noticed the other day that ChatGPT will now cite Grokipedia as a source (and presumably uses search there to ground results). That makes me trust ChatGPT even less than before.
Re: Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
#45Wikipedia does have problems with biases, edit wars, and so on. I think competition for it is good but it has to be principled in some way. If Grok relies on Twitter as a data source to train on, and ultimately that ends up in Grokipedia, I can’t see how it becomes an authority instead of something like just another random social media voice.
Re: Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
#46Nobody remembers Conservapedia. The shoulders of giants indeed.
Your statement is an interesting contradiction in terms.
Even though the point is valid.
Re: Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
#47Why would anyone trust Elon Musk with anything having to do with AI? Just last week he was caught tuning Grok to say positive things about him, something Grok took so seriously that it said Elon would be the best piss drinker in the world, and it put Elon Musk in the top 3 of every human category, from philosophy to boxing to basketball. If he can’t pass up the temptation to put his foot on that scale, why would you…
Caring so much about a stochastic parrot's opinion of you that you just have to tune it is such a tiny temptation to avoid - and yet he couldn't.
How could anyone trust him when there's something really important at stake?
Re: Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
#48The article is 100% correct that there is a fundamental political rift between a human/decentralized and AI/centralized encyclopedia. I have a personal preference for the former, but I can see the advantage of the newer approach in terms of clarity and quality on several topics as well as being more homogeneous in its bias (Wikipedia has all kinds of cliques who dominate pockets of the encyclopedia). As a meta point,…
> If a small group can spin up their own version of Wikipedia then there is the possibility of a more broad diverse market place of ideas.
Sounds more like the world's least efficient way of querying the Median LLM Researcher about a given topic.
Every single pedia page on a topic will either default to median research-agent output (because the owner doesn't care to influence it), or be functionally equivalent to a AI-ghostwritten think piece because the owner cared enough to spin up a whole new wiki for it. In practice, a lot of owner-doesn't-care articles will be polluted by their prompt fiddling in chaotic ways that help nobody.
Re: Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
#49I've been reading a lot of Don Delillo lately and so I wanted to see how Grokipedia page on him fares. I found the "Critiques of elitism" section and noticed this sentence: "Reviews of Mao II (1991), for instance, highlighted the novel's focus on a performance artist protagonist as emblematic of this tendency, with detractors accusing DeLillo of prioritizing esoteric concerns over relatable human experiences, thereby…
But is there any reason to not treat this as Wikipedia? As in, just suggest a correction?
>> I've been reading a lot of Don Delillo lately and so I wanted to see how Grokipedia page on him fares.
> But is there any reason to not treat this as Wikipedia? As in, just suggest a correction?
How? I see no "Edit" link on the article:
* https://grokipedia.com/page/Don_DeLillo
as compared to:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_DeLillo
There is no "Talk" page as well, so if your change is 'contentious', how is consensus reached between different view points? Also, how does one link to previous revisions of an article? Further, how to do diffs between different revisions (there is "Edit history")?
Re: Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
#50The entire point of Grokipedia is to be the anthesis of Wikipedia.