Elon Musk wants to rewrite "the entire corpus of human knowledge" with Grok
-
Thinking wikipedia or other unbiased sources will still be available in a decade or so is wishful thinking. Once the digital stranglehold kicks in, it'll be mandatory sign-in with gov vetted identity provider and your sources will be limited to what that gov allows you to see. MMW.
Yes. There will be no websites only AI and apps. You will be automatically logged in to the apps. Linux, Lemmy will be baned. We will be classed as hackers and criminals. We probably have to build our own mesh network for communication or access it from a secret location.
-
asdf
Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source of information for anything regarding contemporary politics or economics.
Wikipedia presents the views of reliable sources on notable topics. The trick is what sources are considered "reliable" and what topics are "notable", which is why it's such a poor source of information for things like contemporary politics in particular.
-
1.68 IQ move
More like 0.7056 IQ move.
-
Guessing some kind of PR campaign that he purchased to make him look like a genius on TV and movies.
It took a while but in the end we found out why the internet was full of Putin and Musk's memes a few years ago.
-
We have seen from his many other comments about this, that he just wants a propaganda bot that regurgitates all of the right wing talking points. So that will definitely be easier to achieve if he does it that way.
that he just wants a propaganda bot that regurgitates all of the right wing talking points.
Then he has utterly failed with Grok. One of my new favorite pastimes is watching right wingers get angry that Grok won't support their most obviously counterfactual bullshit and then proceed to try to argue it into saying something they can declare a win from.
-
Wikipedia gives lists of their sources, judge what you read based off of that. Or just skip to the sources and read them instead.
Just because Wikipedia offers a list of references doesn't mean that those references reflect what knowledge is actually out there. Wikipedia is trying to be academically rigorous without any of the real work. A big part of doing academic research is reading articles and studies that are wrong or which prove the null hypothesis. That's why we need experts and not just an AI to regurgitate information. Wikipedia is useful if people understand it's limitations, I think a lot of people don't though.
-
[My] translation: "I want to rewrite history to what I want".
That was my first impression, but then it shifted into "I want my AI to be the shittiest of them all".
-
We will use Grok 3.5 (maybe we should call it 4), which has advanced reasoning, to rewrite the entire corpus of human knowledge, adding missing information and deleting errors.
Then retrain on that.
Far too much garbage in any foundation model trained on uncorrected data.
::: spoiler More Context
Source.
:::Not sure if has been said already. Fuck musk.
-
We will use Grok 3.5 (maybe we should call it 4), which has advanced reasoning, to rewrite the entire corpus of human knowledge, adding missing information and deleting errors.
Then retrain on that.
Far too much garbage in any foundation model trained on uncorrected data.
::: spoiler More Context
Source.
:::Elon Musk, like most pseudo intellectuals, has a very shallow understanding of things. Human knowledge is full of holes, and they cannot simply be resolved through logic, which Mush the dweeb imagines.
-
Just because Wikipedia offers a list of references doesn't mean that those references reflect what knowledge is actually out there. Wikipedia is trying to be academically rigorous without any of the real work. A big part of doing academic research is reading articles and studies that are wrong or which prove the null hypothesis. That's why we need experts and not just an AI to regurgitate information. Wikipedia is useful if people understand it's limitations, I think a lot of people don't though.
For sure, Wikipedia is for the most basic subjects to research, or the first step of doing any research (they could still offer helpful sources) . For basic stuff, or quick glances of something for conversation.
-
That was my first impression, but then it shifted into "I want my AI to be the shittiest of them all".
Why not both?
-
asdf
So what would you consider to be a trustworthy source?
-
We will use Grok 3.5 (maybe we should call it 4), which has advanced reasoning, to rewrite the entire corpus of human knowledge, adding missing information and deleting errors.
Then retrain on that.
Far too much garbage in any foundation model trained on uncorrected data.
::: spoiler More Context
Source.
:::He's been frustrated by the fact that he can't make Wikipedia 'tell the truth' for years. This will be his attempt to replace it.
-
We will use Grok 3.5 (maybe we should call it 4), which has advanced reasoning, to rewrite the entire corpus of human knowledge, adding missing information and deleting errors.
Then retrain on that.
Far too much garbage in any foundation model trained on uncorrected data.
::: spoiler More Context
Source.
:::I never would have thought it possible that a person could be so full of themselves to say something like that
-
The plan to "rewrite the entire corpus of human knowledge" with AI sounds impressive until you realize LLMs are just pattern-matching systems that remix existing text. They can't create genuinely new knowledge or identify "missing information" that wasn't already in their training data.
To be fair, your brain is a pattern-matching system.
When you catch a ball, you’re not doing the physics calculations in your head- you’re making predictions based on an enormous quantity of input. Unless you’re being very deliberate, you’re not thinking before you speak every word- your brain’s predictive processing takes over and you often literally speak before you think.
Fuck LLMs- but I think it’s a bit wild to dismiss the power of a sufficiently advanced pattern-matching system.
-
I keep a partial local copy of Wikipedia on my phone and backup device with an app called Kiwix. Great if you need access to certain items in remote areas with no access to the internet.
They may laugh now, but you're gonna kick ass when you get isekai'd.
-
For sure, Wikipedia is for the most basic subjects to research, or the first step of doing any research (they could still offer helpful sources) . For basic stuff, or quick glances of something for conversation.
wrote last edited by [email protected]This very much depends on the subject, I suspect. For math or computer science, wikipedia is an excellent source, and the credentials of the editors maintaining those areas are formidable (to say the least). Their explanations of the underlaying mechanisms are in my experience a little variable in quality, but I haven't found one that's even close to outright wrong.
-
We will use Grok 3.5 (maybe we should call it 4), which has advanced reasoning, to rewrite the entire corpus of human knowledge, adding missing information and deleting errors.
Then retrain on that.
Far too much garbage in any foundation model trained on uncorrected data.
::: spoiler More Context
Source.
:::Unironically Orwellian
-
We will use Grok 3.5 (maybe we should call it 4), which has advanced reasoning, to rewrite the entire corpus of human knowledge, adding missing information and deleting errors.
Then retrain on that.
Far too much garbage in any foundation model trained on uncorrected data.
::: spoiler More Context
Source.
:::I'm just seeing bakes in the lies.
-
Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source of information for anything regarding contemporary politics or economics.
Wikipedia presents the views of reliable sources on notable topics. The trick is what sources are considered "reliable" and what topics are "notable", which is why it's such a poor source of information for things like contemporary politics in particular.
wrote last edited by [email protected]asdf
