points by charcircuit 2 days ago | 0 comments
Grokipedia serves as an existence proof that it is possible.
[–] Cthulhu_ 2 days ago
[–] adsharma 2 days ago
Grokipedia's mistake is that it generates text statically instead of dynamically from a machine curated data structure in latent space.
Latentpedia starts from wikidata, not Wikipedia.
[–] boxed 2 days ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokipedia#:~:text=that%20arti... It literally states itself on the frontpage that it's bad.
Funny though, as that admission of error makes it more reliable than if it tried to hide this fact.
[–] MetalBreaksAndB 2 days ago
Grokipedia lacks the fundamental quality that makes WP great, collaboration.
[–] charcircuit 2 days ago
Saying there is no collaboration is like saying multiple people on a software project can't collaborate with Claude Code because it's really just Claude writing the code.
[–] MetalBreaksAndB 17 hours ago
There's no on-platform way of communicating to other editors and I don't think you get responses from the site when you report errors. It's like saying multiple people on a software project can't collaborate with Claude Code because they're all just yelling at a single claude with no responses from claude or communication between people.
[–] tomaskafka 2 days ago
Funny, I wanted to mention grokipedia as an example of why a pile of slop that’s subtly wrong about many details is a bad idea.
[–] charcircuit 2 days ago
So is Wikipedia, but with grokipedia you can at least correct it even if there is not a journalist pointing out the obvious.
[–] cowlevel 2 days ago
Does Grokipedia even accept contributions that don't align with Musk's political bias?
[–] charcircuit 1 day ago
You are free to give any suggestion that you want.
I have access to a number of LLMs and can order it to build me a wiki site with all knowledge of the world, just like everyone else with the same access. What would make mine any more valuable or better than another?