111–120 of 168 posts
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)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unsupervised Source of Truth(tm), what could possibly go wrong?
I don't understand what supervision you want. Worried about inaccuracies? Double check and use it in conjunction with other sources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nevermind the Grok-ness of it, I can't seriously believe a thinking human being would spend 2 hours knowingly reading something written by AI.
I'm unsurprised that a human being would glibly dismiss the utility of the most powerful new form of knowledge representation since the written word, since we are all deeply in the grip of motivated reasoning.
Peter Hitchens had a hell of a time trying to fix Wikipedia's appalling biases: https://hitchensblogarchive.wordpress.com/2018/08/06/goodbye... Search the site for other examples of the fun he had with it. I'd choose Wikipedia over AI, of course, so I'm ultimately grateful it's there. But better than both would be a well-edited traditional encyclopedia, written by experts in a single voice, and possibly peer-reviewed…
I'm not yet decided on StackOverflow. I won't bother posting there, since every question there nowadays is flagged as offtopic. But I will prefer a stackoverflow answer from a living being, direct and on topic, rather than anything from all those GPTs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>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 al…
Having read both articles (and knowing very little about this topic before), I came away with the firm conclusion that acupuncture is psuedoscience; both articles clearly explain that is not based on scientific principles and its practice is not governed by scientific methods. There was no disagreement between the articles on this point. That many in medicine describe it as quackery is a relevant observation.
It is interesting that needling as a therapy does seem to have some efficacy over placebo in trials, but both articles agree that the current body of evidence is weak with a lack of methodological rigor and very small effect sizes. But I should note that both articles describe acupuncture as being more than just a specific type of needle based therapy. They describe it as an entire system of medicine based on "qi" and the "meridians" of the body, concepts for which there is no scientific evidence. So I think describing acupuncture as "pseudoscience" is accurate.
Anyway, I thought the Grokipedia article was quite good, but also didn't find the Wikipedia article to be particularly biased.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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 tryin…
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?
Grok trained on Wikipedia so it could generate a version of Wikipedia that reflected Musk's views that could then be used to train future versions of Grok.