Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[anewaname]

This needs to be exist, to verbally abuse Grokipedia. Because, if left alone, Grokipedia will be used as equivalency against Wikipedia. But, a Mockipedia can get in the dirt and play with Grokipedia, allowing people to call out Grokipedia on all the datatheft and BS.

[ctsun]

We already have Uncyclopedia for that, I think?

[anewaname]

Uncyclopedia has a one page entry about Grokipedia, that is not enough.

Grokipedia can start lying about anything it wants, whenever Musk wants. This makes Grokipedia the virtual manifestation of every strawman that Musk could ever want to have, ready the moment he needs it.

[ctsun]

Well, if you think that's not enough, you can always expand it/write more pages. There's very little point in making another thing entirely that no one will have heard of/will get very little traffic.

[anewaname]

I don't read the Onion to get news, and I would not use Uncyclopedia to get what wikipedia provides.

Grokipedia can win the fight against wikipedia, because certain for-profit industries will back grokipedia and ensure it has an audience. Ultimately, my post is a post of frustration about this.

[EuchreJack]

Currently, Wikipedia has a massive advantage in branding

[anewaname]

What happens after ten years of teenagers using Grokipedia because it came as a default on their phone's app because certain for-profit industries will back grokipedia and ensure it has an audience?

[Strongpoint]

Wikipedia needs competition. And I don't care if the competition is in the form of Elon-manipulated AI slop with factual mistakes. Better than nothing.

Wikipedia became awfully biased. It was never a great place for looking up historic, religious, or political themes but nowadays... It is beyond awful. It is especially obvious if you compare different language versions on the same topic. There is nothing close to neutrality in those articles. I do understand that truth is not neutral but 1) how you present the truth matters 2) not everything can be objectively ruled as true. 



Grokipedia feels like a pre-alpha: no updates for articles, a huge mess with a horrible interface, numerous factual mistakes, stuff like "no, can't cite wiki" in some obscure articles, citations with broken links and so on. Its biases are oblivious but I hope it will mature into something big. A source of information with a clear and predictable bias is actually useful.

[anewaname]

Those different biases in Wikipedia's language versions are an uncompleted argument about what the truth is (possibly uncompleted because the topic has few editors or because the editors have too few languages). When you see those different biases in Wikipedia's language versions, can you easily recognize the differences? Will Grokipedia easily recognize the differences? At best, Grokipedia will plagiarize both language versions and at worst it will exclude one and present a single biased opinion. It is better that the argument be uncompleted on Wikipedia without an AI weighing in on the topic.

Find the topic where you saw different biases on Wikipedia language pages and ask Grokipedia (or some other AI) some questions:
- ask about the topic just to see if it gives you only one of the biases
- ask for a comparison of those different language versions and for an assessment of the bias differences
Could this AI evaluate those biases in the same way you did?

In the end, either Grokipedia will
1) pass along both biases from Wikipedia
2) pass along only one of those biases
3) pass along a combination of Wikipedia and other internet sources to form a new bias
And you know that if Grokipedia becomes an established tool and option 3) is in play, the owner's of Grokipedia will flood Grokipedia's internet sources with whatever they want Grokipedia to tell everyone.

[Criptfeind]

And I don't care if the competition is in the form of Elon-manipulated AI slop with factual mistakes. Better than nothing.
A source of information with a clear and predictable bias is actually useful.

Hard disagree with these two statements. The issue with the idea of "the propaganda you know is propaganda is useful" thing that's so often said is that so so many people do not consume these things with any criticality. Even if you think you can avoid being taken in by the propaganda yourself (a dubious proposition, frankly everyone is much much much more susceptible to propaganda then they think they are) for every person critically expanding their worldview with a understanding of the inaccuracies of what they are reading thousands or or tens of thousands of people with be uncritically guzzling this slop propaganda and creating completely nonfunctional and irreversible world views based around it and then going on to cause real world harm.

[Strongpoint]

Should we oppose the existence of Wikipedia, too?  It is no less of a propaganda than Grokipedia aims to be. It obviously pushes the opinions of whoever the moderation teams are.

After all, propaganda is merely an attempt to persuade the people and promote certain ideas or ideologies.

Looks like I believe in the freedom of speech more than you. I welcome any propaganda as long as the source of it is clearly marked. I am OK with Musk-owned Grokipedia. I am OK with Russian propaganda. I am OK with religious propaganda. Free market of ideas is necessary.

Propaganda becomes a problem when it misrepresents the source, "I am totally a guy from Texas, not a Russian bot". When you are not allowed to oppose it, "Don't you dare to mock disgusting immoral lies the Word of God, blasphemer. To prison!", when propaganda is pushed disproportionally by the state or algorithms or mere money, when there is no easy way to check for lies, when children are brainwashed by one side and so on.

But trying to eliminate propaganda is the very same thing as trying to eliminate free speech.

[Criptfeind]

Looks like I believe in the freedom of speech more than you. I welcome any propaganda as long as the source of it is clearly marked. I am OK with Musk-owned Grokipedia. I am OK with Russian propaganda. I am OK with religious propaganda. Free market of ideas is necessary.

Propaganda becomes a problem when it misrepresents the source, "I am totally a guy from Texas, not a Russian bot". When you are not allowed to oppose it, "Don't you dare to mock disgusting immoral lies the Word of God, blasphemer. To prison!", when propaganda is pushed disproportionally by the state or algorithms or mere money, when there is no easy way to check for lies, when children are brainwashed by one side and so on.

These two paragraphs seem to be in tension with each other and it's making it pretty hard for me to understand what you believe.

[anewaname]

How are you showing AI can provide less bias?

How are you showing you would have more ability to edit Grokipedia content than Wikipedia content?

[Strongpoint]

Obviously, I don't know what Grokipedia will mature into. All I want it to be good enough to serve as competition to Wikipedia and force it to change and improve.

Wikipedia is a go-to source both for humans and for LLM training and it is increasingly bad. It was better, more neutral, better written, and more encyclopedic. I remember.

[anewaname]

I don't believe Wikipedia has gotten "worse", I believe it has more unfinished arguments about "what really happened". Also, you have refined your views over time (as all people do) so your ability to criticize Wikipedia articles has improved over time.

Consider this... AI created bad fingers. Billions of people also create bad fingers, but those people could recognize their fingers were bad and AI could not. So, how will Grokipedia recognize bias?