Grokipedia.com version 0.1 is now live. Efforts to replace wikipedia with a less biased root source for the world.

Err, you only think Wikipedia is wrong because you are. It's not as if identifying socially as a woman or man despite biological status is not a widespread accepted reality. That you disagree that it is doesn’t change this fact.

Still uses wrong sex pronouns.

Wikipedia thinks Imane Khelif is a woman. It's completely captured by people who think men can be women. The notes and comments by the ' collaborators ' in the talk section makes interesting reading. Basically one 'collaborator' has locked the entry and won't accept that there is plenty of evidence Khelif is male.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imane_Khelif

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imane_Khelif

This person thinks they're being super clever lying about Khelif. Instead he's destroying the reputation of Wikipedia. The truth will win.

I've no particular love for Musk and no opinion about how free from bias Grokipedia is. But as ever trans rights activists are destroying everything they touch.

That's a lot of fun, especially when the critical editors get to have their say.

There's a set of people who put enormous effort over the years into gaining influence on Wikipedia, and they still don't realise that they were just taking over Ask Jeeves.

I tried it out on several subjects that are quite niche but where I have some knowledge. It's not perfect - you can tell the AI is dependent on the balance of web sources out there - but it's pretty good and shows promise.

It'll be an interesting experiment to see how using AI matches up against using (often activist) human editors. Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales used to think that crowdproofing was a hedge against bias, but IME when it comes to certain niche subjects you can find their Wiki pages being squatted by one or two activist editors for years on end, who will revert any edits that don't conform with their viewpoint.

I sometimes wonder how much time and money troll farms spend on MN.

Good grief it’s is truly astounding how effectively people will colour in the world they want to see to suit their bias.

I can’t imagine hating anyone so much that siding with trump against them would seem legitimate

I find the Talk pages quite entertaining.

Ignoring the frothing at the mouth EM seems to provoke in the woke, Wikipedia has been a source of mockery for being a reliable source of knowledge since the beginning. Recently it's become just a parody of knowledge so a new attempt to create an online reference tool is interesting. However Large Language Models are in their infancy and are not as good as the investors in them would like us to believe so it remains too be seen whether this one is any better. It's always good to have an alternative though, maybe the competition will lead to an improvement in both.

It'll still be biased, differently to Wikipedia, but there'll be no Talk pages or page history to browse through to get a feel for what's been left out. AI is always bullshitting in conversations, I don't see why this would be different tbh.

Larry Sanger, one of the founders of Wikipedia, has been banging on about this for years, and in particular how the "reliable sources" requirement was snuck in the back door.

That means, for UK stories, the BBC and the Guardian. The Times might be used with caution, the Telegraph with even more caution, and the Mail is totally blacklisted and may not be used at all.

Oh, and Pink News is a reliable source!

That means, if there's a scandal in the UK and the BBC and Guardian are not covering it, as far as Wikipedia is concerned it never happened. Which is important because of how often lazy journalists rely on Wikipedia.

Personally, I'll still use Wikipedia for questions like "what is the population of Mogadishu", but it's worse than useless for any issue of even slight political or cultural controversy. I stopped being an editor years ago, but once you've seen the back end, the bullying cliques of activist editors with bias on full display, you don't ever forget it.

Fascinating, though very long, article about how one Wiki admin has been gaming the site rules and processes for years to promote his personal agendas. Especially revealing on how the requirement for Reliable Sources and references that should keep contributors honest can itself be manipulated.

Written by an ex-Mormon furry no less, and no the worse for it.

www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wikipedia-admin

Musk is a thin-skinned bully, a charlatan with deep pockets, who likes to take credit for others' work. Like he didn't found Tesla but likes to pretend he did.

That said, I feel like Grokipedia may be an interesting application of AI but from browsing a few pages it looks to be mostly based on Wikipedia, except with less visibility into how each page has been written. So really what is the point.

"his"

If only you could comprehend the misogyny in your own assumptions…

Yet again, Howie is unable to avoid displaying his misogyny.

Nice one, pal. You never disappoint us.

Gotta hand it Musk & the billionaire class tho, they correctly calculate there's always an endless supply of fawning fanboy/girl minions willing to cuck themselves on behalf of the 'rightful' ruling class…

Lord knows I have my reservations about Elon, but I love that for the FWR lefties, it's not enough to have specific reservations about Elon, one has to loudly and demonstratively denounce everything that's even vaguely associated with him, like as if he were the devil himself.

These are often the same people who refuse to distance themselves from Martin James Smith and his associates. Funny old world.

His AI sex bots that he thinks are going to help repopulate the planet and actually train men how to date...the settings for your girlfriend are submissive or super-submissive.