Don't use Wikipedia anymore, Grokipedia just came out and it cuts away all the liberal left-wing bias that plagues wikipedia.grokipedia.comLook at the difference between the George Floyd articles here:https://x.com/DillonLoomis22/status/1982971618499473813From Elon:"You will be able to ask Grok to add/modify/delete articles and it will either take the action or tell you it won’t and why."You can highlight any sentence in an article to ask Grok a question about it or to say why it's wrong so Grok will correct it.
>>525817207buy an add elon you faggot
>>525817207Lol garbage This unscientific crap will never be accepted in academia. Sources without peer review are meaningless. Take a class, dumbass cletus.
>>525817207You gotta be more subtle than that Elon
>>525817207
Can I download an offline instance of Grokipedia?
>>525817207What does it say about the USS Liberty?
>>525817369the peers are garbage
>>525817369>he thinks Wikipedia articles are used in papers and studies
Grok is hard programmed to lie that all jeets are 100 IQ, despite all testing showing their average is 76 IQ and if you cut them into 12 portions, the highest are Brahmin, at about 95 IQ. In other words Grok is untrustworthy on that alone. Many global ranking cites, and as I said even split only-india IQ testing that went by caste rank them as mostly below American blacks 85 IQ. Cannot think abstractly, breakfast.
>>525817792>>525817369Real people can propose edits to the articles, they're just confirmed with AI first.
>>525817207Just had a look.ITS DOG SHIT ON GAZA WAR and Israel war crimes.
>>525817207>wikipedia first paragraph>gets to the meat of the topic without any fluff. conveys accurate information and uses only as many words as needed.>includes all the other details mentioned in the Grok paragraph, but in the following paragraphs rather than the opening>grok opening paragraph>desperate to cram in as many Floyd-discrediting details as possible in the first paragraph. is more concerned about painting a picture of Floyd's character than giving me a synopsis of the topic>ultimately doesn't say anything contrary to the wikipedia articleWho is this for?
>>525817792wikipedia articles are used in thousands of papers and studies. perhaps millions if you include 'read the wikipedia article and then quoted the wikipedia article and then clicked the little [3] and copied wikipedia's source for the information without actually checking with the source'
>>525817647At least they’re peers. There is no knowledge without dialogue, retard.
>>525818698Reddit posts aren’t “papers and studies” you fucking jeet
>>525818056>>525819367
>>525817207How's the early life/education sections? Because that's all I really use it for.
>>525819609Early life sections were there in the few articles I checked.
>>525817792no but their sources are
>>525819409reddit posters have a surprising number of publishes.
..
>>525817207buy an ad, elon
>>525817536That's funny I tried using Grok to get opinions on the bell experiment the other day. Even though there's multiple theories on how it works without locality grok simply won't accept that we dont know. It really heavily gaslights on the subject.
>>525818698there's no way you've spent a single day of your life near an academic department lmao wikipedia is treated like toxic waste and for good reason
>>525817792modern scientists use AI so reddit/wiki
Modern AI is very trustworthy and Grok hallucination rate is very low especially compared to ChatGPT.
>>525817207Grok is literally Yes Man from fallout.
>>525817207>boot up LLM>give it a system prompt to chuddify the text>feed it any wikipedia page you wantthis is just what grokipedia is
>>525825732Better than the leftist bias.
nah.
