Wikipedia's betrayal serves as a tragic reminder that no technology is incorruptible, no platform is permanently inoculated against capture. Grokipedia 0.1 is already vastly better...at least for now.
I did one quick comparison of Wiki and Groki on Bruce Springsteen. I only read the first couple paragraphs but they seemed to be identical. Of course Bruce’s early life isn’t too controversial.
I also listened to the All In podcast with Elon. He basically confirmed that Grokipedia was built by using Wiki as a starting point then using AI to clean it up.
I have high hopes.
Anyone, please correct me if I got anything wrong here. I didn’t invest a lot of time on it.
My first checks were of articles I knew were highly biased on Wikipedia, such as those on the Center for Security Policy and on Frank Gaffney. The Wiki articles might as well have been written by the DNC. The Grokipedia articles were factual. Radical difference.
"Wikipedia brandished crowd-source credibility — this is what the community has decided to be true" // An old principle, used and abused by religions and the Communist Party and lynch mobs.
Grokipedia uses "balancing" with leaning towards "objective realism". It shows up terribly in the kant and modernism articles. It doesn't capture a lot and ends up looking amateurish. I'm sure it's better for more politicized articles.
I did one quick comparison of Wiki and Groki on Bruce Springsteen. I only read the first couple paragraphs but they seemed to be identical. Of course Bruce’s early life isn’t too controversial.
I also listened to the All In podcast with Elon. He basically confirmed that Grokipedia was built by using Wiki as a starting point then using AI to clean it up.
I have high hopes.
Anyone, please correct me if I got anything wrong here. I didn’t invest a lot of time on it.
My first checks were of articles I knew were highly biased on Wikipedia, such as those on the Center for Security Policy and on Frank Gaffney. The Wiki articles might as well have been written by the DNC. The Grokipedia articles were factual. Radical difference.
Good to know!
"Wikipedia brandished crowd-source credibility — this is what the community has decided to be true" // An old principle, used and abused by religions and the Communist Party and lynch mobs.
I am a librarian and I remind others that Wikipedia is NOT the resource to use. I teach actual research skills.
Grokipedia uses "balancing" with leaning towards "objective realism". It shows up terribly in the kant and modernism articles. It doesn't capture a lot and ends up looking amateurish. I'm sure it's better for more politicized articles.