I'm well aware of Watson's views that got him cancelled.
I know that Grok is meant to be the "uncensored, unbiased" version of LLMs. But the training data still reflects human bias, and there is definitely some irony in using an LLM for "objectivity." I do wonder what HN thinks about this though. Whether you can prompt an LLM to reflect more balanced takes that humans could do in controversial topics (assuming the LLM is "rooted" without a biased system prompt.)
Well timonoko also posts Grok generated FORTH code that doesn't work, and then retroactively claims it was just a joke when called on it, so it's safe to assume he doesn't know what he's talking about, that he and Grok and grokipedia are always joking and making shit up, and not to take any of them seriously, because he believes what he wants to believe without fact checking, and he post Grok generated AI slop regularly.
Care to point out anything on the page that’s factually incorrect?
It sounds like you consider it to be cancer because someone with whom you don’t agree is involved with it, but that doesn’t really provide a good reason why the article should be dismissed without even reading it.
We know that Grok, like other LLMs, is trained on data that is not held to any rigorous standard of knowledge like exists in the fields of journalism or academia.
There is no reason to think that such a system is even capable of determining truth. At best, we might be able to say that it reflects a consensus of opinion, but even that is a stretch given the nature of these systems.
And that ignores the fact that we know that these products are designed to be sycophantic to their users/operators. That is not a recipe for objective knowledge. Especially given what we know about Grok (meddling by Musk).
And to cap it all off, for all of Wikipedia's real or perceived flaws, all of the decision making is done in public view. This is very much not the case with Grok.
It's dystopian and obviously so. Your comment about "Luddite mentality" is farcical on its face. Of you, I might say something like... "techbro mentality", or maybe even something less flattering.
Your point about Wikipedia being out in the open is correct and fair. Grokipedia should do the same. Grokipedia is at version .1 and they have stated the intention is to open source it, so it seems obvious that it will be similarly open.
Just because it’s done in the open doesn’t mean it can’t have some pretty bad biases though. Just looking at the set of allowable sources shows pretty extreme bias to begin with. The type of people who self select to become Wikipedia editors (just like Reddit mods) skew heavily on many topics, and there isn’t much effort to correct for it.
Again though, you are not pointing out anything wrong with the information presented itself, only the fact that you don’t like the person/technology compiling the information.
And of course a pro-white-supremacist biased LLM is going to falsely exonerate a racist like James Watson with the same pro-racist biases that Elon Musk programmed it with.
And timonoko also regularly posts Grok generated AI slop bullshit, and even pretends to be a FORTH programmer by having Grog generate code that doesn't do anything like what he claims it does, which should be obvious if he even glanced at the code he was posting. I'd hate to see the kind of Grok-generated buggy crap he unwittingly checks into source code control.
It's strange that timonoko is so compelled to virtue signal so often that he shares Musk's and Grok's racist views. But at least now we know what kind of person he is.
James Watson just stated that intelligence and race are related. Something that every normal person knows and experiences regularly. Calling things that you don’t like racist doesn’t work anymore, nobody cares.
There is so much anti white hatred present in media, many people yearn for a source of information to correct for it.
One example just this week the economist published this wonderful headline:
>With Trump and Vance in power, many pro-natalists believe this is the moment to jump-start baby-making. But some critics see pro-natalism as part of an insidious project to create a whiter America
There are hundreds of headlines like this present in publications that are in Wikipedia’s allowable sources list. We are happy to have a source to correct for its bias.
You did not address any of the actual information presented, only the fact that you don’t like the people/technology used to create it, which kind of makes my point.
