zlacker

With some controversial topics like Nuclear Power on the German wikipedia or the Gaza conflict on the English one, wikipedia has become less than useless. Once an activist editor sith too much time gets hold of a page, it is game over for neutrality of wokipedia. Grokipedia might introduce some much needed competition.

>>wortel+(OP)
It is not politically correct to observe this, of course, but the only competition Grokipedia is introducing is the competition to mainstream white supremacist ideas while maintaining plausible deniability.

I think the question that XAI asks is "how close to mecha hitler can we get before people notice and complain?"

>>wortel+(OP)
There are more than 7 million articles on wikipedia. 2 controversial ones do not invalidate the rest and sure does not deserve the "less than useless" label.

>>wortel+(OP)
I think it depends on the subject. Sure, I have heard a historian call it "Wickedpedia" because it gets all the facts wrong. But have a look at the "hash function" page. That is pretty in-depth.

However, this all misses the point that the article is making: It's a store of knowledge added to and edited by humans. At least they're not AI, the article says. I don't know if this is true, but if so, I find it compelling.

>>wortel+(OP)
Everyone in this comment session is now worse for having read this comment

>>wortel+(OP)
How would "competition" lead to better neutrality? What's the selling point of "I'm more neutral than you"?

>>wortel+(OP)
What an astoundingly similar comment to: >>45734456

I'm sorry but there is no way for reasonable people to believe that Grokipedia would be a legitimate alternative to wikipedia.

It betrays a deep misunderstanding about LLM's in general, but especially grok, and objectivity itself as a concept.

>>wortel+(OP)
You had me in the first half.

>>wortel+(OP)
I glanced at the Gaza stuff like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_conflict and it seemed quite a reasonable summary. What makes it useless? Any facts wrong?

I'm kind of neutral on the conflict and genuinely curious.

About the only bit of Wikipedia I've come across that I feel is inaccurate due to editorial policy is on covid origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2

>While other explanations, such as speculations that SARS-CoV-2 was accidentally released from a laboratory have been proposed, such explanations are not supported by evidence.

Which I don't think is true.

>>tim333+nD
To be fair, their isn't any evidence for any explanation how COVID happened. The only thing we know is that gene splicing isn't involved, it's a genetically 'natural' variant. All other theories about what happened, including it's origin, is unsatisfactory at best.

Some Chinese I talk to think it's not from Wuhan, but rural China, and got confused with flu there, and since no one care about them [0].

If the virus circulated two months in rural China and the local authorities only detected it once it got in a big city, that's a big indictment against the CCP. Like a virus breaking out of a lab would be. But we have no evidence of either, and I'm not ready to choose between the two.

[0] China biggest issue is its countryside away from the coast, it's terrible there. less addict than in WV for sure, but tribes of 'abandoned' kids that makes 'lord of the fly' seems like a documentary. Since rural China population curve looks like a U (all the working age adults work for months in the city and come back twice a year, leaving their old parents or sometimes grandparents take care of the kid), and COVID was so hard on the elderly, post COVID it seems you have villages with two adults for 50 kids, and maybe worse.

>>orwin+DR
I wouldn't say it's proven one way or the other but you can cite evidence on both sides, like in favour of a zoonotic origin, the previous SARS outbreak and other viruses have been zoonotic, there were cases near the wet market. In favour of lab, it's a bit of a coincidence that a novel form or SARS popped up near the number one lab in the world researching such stuff, and in a way that could be easily explained by research proposed by Ralph Baric, the no 1 researcher of such stuff who proposed such research in collaboration with the Wuhan lab.

My guess is that although a grant application for Baric's research was turned down, the Wuhan lab went ahead and did it anyway and had a screw up.

Evidence doesn't have to mean proven beyond all doubt.

>>tim333+7U
What I meant that we only have circumstantial evidence, not hard evidence, so any explanation will be about beliefs, not about facts.