Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Grokipedia by xAI

grokipedia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 169 posts

Re: Grokipedia by xAI

#151

Post by ElijahLynn »

rsynnott wrote: post #66
roryirvine wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've spotted surprising amounts of confidently-stated nonsense even in fairly neutral articles where Elon / xAI is unlikely to have a particular political slant. Many of the most glaring errors are linked to references which either directly contradict Grokipedia's assertion or don't mention the supposed fact one way or the other. I guess this is down to LLM hallucinations? I've not used Grok before, but the problems…

> I suspect that xAI should probably have prioritised quality over quantity for the initial launch. I mean, I don't think this is _for_ people who care about quality, tbh. For those, there is wikipedia. This is more of a safe space for Musk.

> safe space for Musk

++

Re: Grokipedia by xAI

#152

Post by filoleg »

measurablefunc wrote: post #39
charcircuit wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think Wikimedia doesn't profit off of the contributions people make to Wikipedia? >pays for real expenses Only a small percentage of donations do. >instead of whatever vanity project Anytime the topic of Wikimedia donations come up you will see people complaining about their vanity projects too, wishing they could donate towards wikipedia itself.

If you are happy to work for a for-profit corporation w/o any financial compensation then you are more than welcome to do that. Seems a bit irrational to me but that's just my opinion.

> If you are happy to work for a for-profit corporation w/o any financial compensation then you are more than welcome to do that. Seems a bit irrational to me but that's just my opinion.

Not the person you are replying to, and it is a bit tangential, but you just basically described a solid chunk of open-source software work.

I am not mocking open-source software work, I am mocking how reductionist the parent comment was, because their logic often applies to volunteer open-source software work as well. And, I suspect, on HN we can agree that volunteer open-source software work can often be worth doing, regardless of how "irrational" it is or how much for-profit corporations could benefit from it.

Re: Grokipedia by xAI

#153

Post by wredcoll »

palmotea wrote: post #121
rsynnott wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect that xAI should probably have prioritised quality over quantity for the initial launch. I mean, I don't think this is _for_ people who care about quality, tbh. For those, there is wikipedia. This is more of a safe space for Musk.

> I mean, I don't think this is _for_ people who care about quality, tbh. For those, there is wikipedia. This is more of a safe space for Musk. Wikipedia isn't for those who care about quality, either. It's still quantity over quality, just not as badly as this LLM garbage.

[citation needed]

Re: Grokipedia by xAI

#154

Post by wredcoll »

systemstops wrote: post #103
qingcharles wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So will Wikipedia.

I hope so, but that would require of rolling back some changes they made that led to ideological biases, which would be fought tooth and nail.

Having to give credence to incorrect theories and lies would not, in fact, be an improvement.

Re: Grokipedia by xAI

#155

Post by wredcoll »

fennec-posix wrote: post #28
tastyface wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another thing philosopher genius and right-wing darling Curtis Yarvin recently said: "We have only one problem. The problem is: our billionaires are n—ers. They may be rich. But they're n—er rich. The nature and function of their wealth is profoundly negrous. You can probably name exceptions. I can too. But in every way, the exceptions prove the rule" https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:sefgphqp2xqwh2hawaixykwz/po...

I still don't understand what he meant by that statement, none the less, floors me each time I read it. I don't think it's for my understanding... I'm not his audience.

It seems intellectually vacuous. But I guess it's edgy and makes some people feel goood?

Re: Grokipedia by xAI

#156

Post by Maken »

benrutter wrote: post #143

Putting aside my political concerns about Elon Musk starting an encyclopedia, I thought I'd look up the indie rock band Beat Happening as a tester. My first thoughts were that it was very impressive. There's a confused garbled image link (that appears as text) but otherwise it looks convincing: > Beat Happening was an American indie pop band formed in Olympia, Washington, in 1982 by vocalist and guitarist Calvin John…

The point is rewriting the articles that matter to Musk. Nobody cares about the rest of the articles, they are there just to justify Grokipedia being an encyclopedia at all.

Re: Grokipedia by xAI

#157

Post by hagbard_c »

thiht wrote: post #146
hagbard_c wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I ask why you directly added it to your blocklist? I can see several potential reasons people block sites and I wonder which is the leading one for you.

I don’t need to access the far right echo chamber of a fucking nazi billionaire. MAGA are liars and they believe truth is "left-biased". To them "unbiased" means "fits how I want the world to be". There’s absolutely no objectivity to expect from Grok, Grokipedia, Twitter. It’s the same shit as Conservapedia. That they attack Wikipedia because it’s somehow fake is proof enough that Grokipedia is gonna become a fascist…

You're clearly the target market for Wikipedia and as such have nothing to gain from any attempts to open your mind for a different view.

Just... go easy on all those labels you spew out so easily. It makes it hard to take anything you say seriously, as it stands now those labels seem more like a mirror.

Re: Grokipedia by xAI

#158

Post by thiht »

hagbard_c wrote: post #157
thiht wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t need to access the far right echo chamber of a fucking nazi billionaire. MAGA are liars and they believe truth is "left-biased". To them "unbiased" means "fits how I want the world to be". There’s absolutely no objectivity to expect from Grok, Grokipedia, Twitter. It’s the same shit as Conservapedia. That they attack Wikipedia because it’s somehow fake is proof enough that Grokipedia is gonna become a fascist…

You're clearly the target market for Wikipedia and as such have nothing to gain from any attempts to open your mind for a different view. Just... go easy on all those labels you spew out so easily. It makes it hard to take anything you say seriously, as it stands now those labels seem more like a mirror.

None of these labels are false. I won’t shy away from calling a spade a spade, or a nazi a nazi. I’m tired of far right extremists trying to control the narrative while saying the most hateful shit and lying all the time. If you want to attack someone’s speech, attack MAGA. They’re the party of flat earth and antivax and "paracetamol causes autism" and "slavery was not that bad".

And stop trying to frame this as just open mindedness, this is not the case. MAGA and far right billionaires are not the open minded ones.

Re: Grokipedia by xAI

#159

Post by hagbard_c »

thiht wrote: post #158
hagbard_c wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're clearly the target market for Wikipedia and as such have nothing to gain from any attempts to open your mind for a different view. Just... go easy on all those labels you spew out so easily. It makes it hard to take anything you say seriously, as it stands now those labels seem more like a mirror.

None of these labels are false. I won’t shy away from calling a spade a spade, or a nazi a nazi. I’m tired of far right extremists trying to control the narrative while saying the most hateful shit and lying all the time. If you want to attack someone’s speech, attack MAGA. They’re the party of flat earth and antivax and "paracetamol causes autism" and "slavery was not that bad". And stop trying to frame this as just…

You calling these individuals 'nazis' devalues the term and ridicules those who fought and died to defeat the Nazis. It devalues the threat the Nazis were to those around them.

You using terms like 'nazi' and 'far right extremist' so easily to indicate those who you happen to dislike tells me you need to either grow up or need to touch grass, for real. Drop that applePhone and go outside, meet some people. Meet some of those you would call nazis and right wing extremists as well just like they meet people like you all the time.

Grow up.

Re: Grokipedia by xAI

#160

Post by sholladay »

roryirvine wrote: post #65
cozzyd wrote: post #22

Amusing to see what Grokipedia thinks of various cities. And no surprise, apartheid apologetics: https://grokipedia.com/page/Apartheid#debunking-prevailing-n... Hilarious factual errors in https://grokipedia.com/page/Green_Line_(CTA)

I've spotted surprising amounts of confidently-stated nonsense even in fairly neutral articles where Elon / xAI is unlikely to have a particular political slant. Many of the most glaring errors are linked to references which either directly contradict Grokipedia's assertion or don't mention the supposed fact one way or the other. I guess this is down to LLM hallucinations? I've not used Grok before, but the problems…

Some time ago, there was a project called Citizendium that aimed for quality over quantity, with articles written and peer-reviewed by subject matter experts who had to use their real names and working email addresses, among other requirements. I always thought that was interesting, since the main critique of Wikipedia is its open editing model.

Citizendium is still around, though they've loosened some of the requirements in order to encourage more contributions, which seems self-defeating to me. I think they should have tried to cooperate with Wikipedia instead. The edits and opinions of subject matter experts could be a special layer on top of existing Wikipedia articles. Maybe there could be a link for various experts with highlights of sections they have peer-reviewed and a diff of what they would change about the article if those changes haven't been accepted. There could also be labels for how much expert consensus and trust there is on a given snapshot of an article or how frozen the article should be based on consensus and evidence provided by the experts. This would help users delineate whether an article contains a lot of common knowledge or whether it's more speculative or controversial.

Post reply on HN