Live data from Hacker News

Tim Bray on Grokipedia

tbray.org

71–80 of 243 posts

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#71
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play devil's advocate: Grok has historically actually been one of the biggest debunkers of right-wing misinformation and conspiracy theories on Twitter, contrary to popular conception. Elon keeps trying to tweak its system prompt to make it less effective at that, but Grokipedia was worth an initial look from me out of curiosity. It took me 10 seconds to realize it was ideologically-motivated garbage and significa…

“ Grok has historically actually been one of the biggest debunkers of right-wing misinformation and conspiracy theories on Twitter” Well, no, it hasn’t. It has debunked some things. It has made some incorrect shit up. But it isn’t historically one of the “biggest debunkers” of anything. Do we only speak hyperbole now?

I am not using hyperbole or speculating. I absolutely mean it.

"Biggest" is tough to quantify, but "most significant" and "most effective" is what I meant. I use Twitter way too many hours a day basically every day and have a morbid fixation on diving deep into right and far-right rabbit holes there. (Like, on thousands of occasions.)

Grok is without a doubt the single most important contributor to convincing believers of right-wing conspiracy theories that maybe the theories aren't as sound as they thought. I have seen this play out hundreds of times. Grok often serves as a kind of referee or tiebreaker in threads between right-wing conspiracy theorists and debunkers, and it typically sides overwhelmingly with the debunkers. (Or at least used to.) And it does it in a way that validates the conspiracy theorist's feelings, so it's less likely to trigger a psychological immune system response.

https://www.reddit.com/r/GROKvsMAGA/ contains some examples. These may seem cherry-picked, but they generally aren't. (Might need to look at some older posts now that Elon has put increasingly pressure on the Grok and Grokipedia developers to keep it """anti-woke""".)

When a right-wing conspiracy theorist sees some liberal or leftist call them out for their falsehoods, they respond with insults or otherwise dismiss or ignore it. When daddy Elon's Grok tells them - politely - that what they believe is complete horseshit, they react differently. They often respond to it 3 - 20 times, poking and prodding. Of course, most still come away from it convinced Grok is just compromised by the wokes/Jews/whatever. But some seem to actually eventually accept that, at the least, maybe they got some details wrong. It's a very fascinating sight. I almost never see that reaction when they argue with human interlocutors.

To be clear, it was never perfect. For example, if you word things in just the right way and ask leading questions, then like with any LLM (especially one that needs to respond in under 280 characters) you can often eventually coax it into saying something close to what you want. I have just seen many instances where it cuts through bullshit in a way that a leftist arguing with a Nazi can't really do.

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#72
At a glance, Grokipedia seems quite promising to me, considering how new it is. There are plenty of external citations, so rather than relying on a model to recall information internally, it’s likely effectively just summarizing external references. The fact that it’s automatically generated at scale means it can be iterated on to improve fact checking reliability, exclude certain known sources as unreliable, and ensure it has up-to-date and valid citation links. We’ll have to wait and see how it changes over time, but I expect an AI driven online encyclopedia to eventually replace the need for a fully human wikipedia.

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#73
Maybe it's just me, but reading through LLM generated prose becomes a drag very quickly. The em dashes sprinkled everywhere, the "it's not this, it's that" style of writing. I even tried listening to it and it's still exhausting. Maybe it's the ubiquity of it nowadays that is making me jaded, but I tend to appreciate terrible writing, like I'm doing in this comment, more nowadays.

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#74

Not sure it still does this but for awhile if you asked Grok a question about a sensitive topic and expanded the thinking, it said it was searching Elon's twitter history for its ground truth perspective. So instead of a Truth-maximizing AI, it's an Elon-maximizing AI.

This was unintended as observed by Simon here: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jul/11/grok-musk/ and confirmed by xAI themselves here: https://x.com/xai/status/1945039609840185489

>Another was that if you ask it “What do you think?” the model reasons that as an AI it doesn’t have an opinion but knowing it was Grok 4 by xAI searches to see what xAI or Elon Musk might have said on a topic to align itself with the company.

The diff for the mitigation is here: https://github.com/xai-org/grok-prompts/commit/e517db8b4b253...

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#75
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Grokipedia only seems to solve astroturfing by ramping gatekeeping up to 11, not allowing anyone outside of xAI to directly influence content or policy, or even observe the decision making processes that go into it. It stands to reason that you can't astroturf a brick wall.

So by your logic, there's only room for one gatekept source of general purpose information on the web? No one besides entrenched progressive interests can do anything to Wikipedia. It's like reddit. We're tired of your guys' spaces. So sorry if this offends.

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#76
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's great idea to share knowledge bases collected and curated by LLMs. Amazing that Musk did it first. (Although it was suggested to him as part of an interview a month before release). These systems are very good at finding obscure references that were overlooked by mere mortals.

"It's great idea to share knowledge bases collected and curated by LLMs" Is it though? LLMs are great at answering questions based on information you make available to them, especially if you have the instincts and skill to spot when they are likely to make mistakes and to fact-check key details yourself. That doesn't mean that using them to build a knowledge base itself is a good idea! We need reliable, verified kno…

Crucial to distinguish between knowledge, fact, claim and allegation. Compare:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kirk#Assassination

https://grokipedia.com/page/Charlie_Kirk : Assassination Details and Investigation

This is an active case that has not gone to trial, and the alleged text messages and Discords have not had their forensics cross-examined. Yet Grokipedia is already citing them as fact, not allegation. (What is considered the correct neutral way to report on alleged facts in active cases?)

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Name one.

Some left-coded popular conspiracies:

1. The Iraq war was a plot to steal oil reserves

2. World Economic Forum / IMF intentionally impoverish nations

3. Police across America are systematically hunting and executing Black men (thousands per year), but are protected by racist institutions

4. Trump assassination attempts were false flag operations

5. Big Pharma deliberately hides natural cures for cancer to protect corporate profits

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#78
post #2

Why give it oxygen?

Same reason you posted that comment: it's sometimes interesting to discuss a thing even if you dislike the thing.

I'm fine with the logic of discussing it here but can't fathom why Tim Bray thought this would be a useful post given his own objectives.

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#79
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not controlled by a trusted actor so it doesn't matter how it happens to act at the moment. They could pull the rug at any future time and its almost better to gain trust now and cash in that trust later.

My expectations were extremely low, as were, and are, my expectations of Grok in general. Was just making an actual devil's advocate case.

> Was just making an actual devil's advocate case.

Why? We're not nominating a saint or electing a Pope.

If someone has a certain opinion, they're free to argue it here. There's no need to invent imaginary opinions and pretend to advocate for them when there are so many actual HN users.

Re: Tim Bray on Grokipedia

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Proof? More than a couple anecdotes please.

The ADL was caught in a campaign making edits. I remember more details in the past but I simply can't find them now with any search engine.

https://forward.com/news/467423/adl-may-have-violated-wikipe...

But also the ADL is accusing others of covert campaigns: https://wassermanschultz.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?...

So I am sure this is a thing among corporations/NGOs. Note that I picked the ADL because I happened to know this and not because I am trying to make a point about the ADL's purpose. Also I am not really answering the part about progressives although the ADL is arguably a progressive NGO. I think there are astroturfing campaigns on Wikipedia whether progressive or not.

Post reply on HN