you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 105 points 11 months ago (18 children)

Elon Musk has launched an online encyclopedia named Grokipedia that he said relied on artificial intelligence and would align more with his rightwing views than Wikipedia, though many of its articles say they are based on Wikipedia itself.

Calling an AI encyclopedia “super important for civilization”, Musk had been planning the Wikipedia rival for at least a month. Grokipedia does not have human authors, unlike Wikipedia, which is written and edited by volunteers in a transparent process. Grokipedia said it is “fact-checked” by Grok, Musk’s AI chatbot

Sounds like he told Grok to "rephrase" Wikipedia, then tells it to edit random shit so that it agrees with his views.

I'd bet if you looked up a random neutral topic, there'd be a clear case for plagiarism straight from Wikipedia.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 95 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    You would be correct. Random page, almost completely identical:

    Call of Duty 3 (Wikipedia) Call of Duty 3 (Grokipedia)

    Each section has 1-3 words changed, that's it.

    So basically, Elon forked Wikipedia and edited the pages that didn't align with the conservative worldview.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 49 points 11 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (10 children)
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I wonder if its a one-time fork, or if Musk wants to continue to derive benefit from Wikipedia authors and editors. Is it possible its actually a real-time AI filtering each request? If so that would burn up a massive amount of AI tokens.

    It would also present some great methods to tease out exactly how his filters are working. Assuming its real-time, a single wikipedia page could be created with test content with specific words or phrases then a check on the grok version to see if it alters it. A full map could be built of exactly the rules its using.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago

    It can't be a one time fork. Whenever his propaganda changes, he's going to want to give different instructions to his AI and then regenerate the entire encyclopedia like he already did.

    It's a different use case from an encyclopedia that is based on facts and the truth.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Its a shame there is no license that forbids AI use. Well, there kind of are but none are common and probably wouldn't hold up in court. Still, it would be nice to attach to work and communicate that the preference is to not have AI reuse

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    You must have misread, grok is doing the fact checking not Elon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    You must have misread, I'm not writing a book, my pen is

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

    I don't get the joke? Mine would make the most sense reading the post I'm responding to and then immediately reading mine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    But he thought about it for at least a month! Must be a good idea! (/s)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    The far right has always hated wikipedia.

    Lemmy even had some weird account who spam posted about how terrible Wikipedia was for a while. Not sure if they stopped or if I just blocked them at some point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Yeah, for some weird reason, a lot of wingnuts just hated Wikipedia from day one. Not sure how it was orchestrated so fast. Some of the ones pretending to be "independents" were claiming that Wikipedia just could not work, since "anyone can edit it".

    But some of the biggest complainers were the kind of babies that think all of the culture has been orchestrated in opposition to their feelings that they hold as "facts". Meaning, if other people don't just accept their worldview as the default centered and correct one, they lose their shit.

    We have probably all met people that think their take on "the" bible is not only correct, but self-evident and provable, etc...and naturally, any bullshit morality they want to spin out of that should be just accepted as a "fact", etc...they then proceed to just make up how policy should work in the United States, because first they use bad logic to center their superstitions, just lie outright about how the United States is supposedly a xtian country, etc...and so they spend endless rage spinning on even the dating conventions because their character of Jesus is not put at the center of everything. When they run across something like Wikipedia that isn't as cloistered, it drives them crazy. See also: things like PBS, NPR, universities in general, educated people, and so on...

  • source
  • parent