In other news

So firstly you messed up the twitter link so I thought he was talking about the article on him, not one about something he contributed to (I fixed it for you in the quote). Secondly I decided to actually read the articles properly this time and holy crap is grokipedia not remotely objective in tone. In both the article about the NIH director and about the Great Barrington Declaration the tone of the writing is strongly biased towards being in favour of the subject of the article. It might be that this is true for all articles (I haven't read much of anything else yet) and it is entirely possible that this it is factually accurate but the tone of the writing is atrocious for something that is supposed to be objective. It also seems to veer into what is essentially opinionated analysis at various points, this paragraph being an especially egregious example:

It reads like someone writing a paper and giving their opinion about what they think the impact of his work has been, not an objective recounting of facts, which is what an encyclopedia article should be. The first sentence is just straight up subjective conjecture without even any references to support it. The second references an article written by Jay himself(!) that requires registration with the National Post and can't be viewed without it.

Wikipedia might be at times somewhat ideological and subjective in what is included but it is almost universally written with an objective tone. This could arguably be more dangerous in cases where the objective tone isn't backed by accurate citations but from what I've seen of grokipedia so far its referencing is not great and the overall tone of the articles is far more subjective than wikipedia.

Except for the carbon tax’s ..

This encounter had absolutely nothing to crimes from a decade earlier.

As far as I'm concerned, the officer was not subjected to any sort of injustice, so the answer to your question is no.

I made the post on phone, which is hard to link tweets. Thanks for the assist.

The literal second sentence of the Wikipedia article on the same subject is as follows:

It claimed that COVID-19 lockdowns could be avoided via the fringe notion of "focused protection", by which those most at risk of dying from an infection could purportedly be kept safe while society otherwise took no steps to prevent infection.[3][4][5]

--First off, insertion of the word "fringe" (taken from the title of a Guardian article) is extremely subjective and inserts strong negative connotations. And "society otherwise took no steps to prevent infection" is extremely bad faith negative framing, as "focused protection" itself includes society taking reasonable steps to prevent infection, making it unnecessary to include this, other than as a vehicle to push their own biases.

If you think inserting a strong negative bias and saying things literally not true to reinforce this bias is better than the Grokipedia entry, we will have to agree to disagree I guess.

Also, in Grokipedia's defense it is very much in its infancy and is very far from a finished product, so presumably it can be refined. As opposed to Wikipedia, where there is little hope Wikipedia will course correct. In fact, it seems to be doubling down on promoting subjective far left activism.

It seems X is going to keep developing Grokipedia, so everyone will be served. Those who want facts can go to Grokipedia. And those who want ideological driven left wing activism can go to Wikipedia. Win-win.

FWIW, one of the founders of Wikipedia actually agrees it has been corrupted by activism and intelligence agencies. As an aside, an amusing anecdote during the video is that Tucker (true to form) made a suggestion that the ADL exercised editorial control over Wikipedia, and Sanger quickly corrected him that the "Jewish perspective" was not represented very much on Wikipedia, consistent with its left wing (((anti-Zionist))) biases. Tucker quickly changed topics.

--The aforementioned co-founder of Wikipedia who is highly critical of its activist and IA biases.

Believing that anything musk creates is the source of truth is exactly what musk wants you to believe.

Grokipedia is stolen Wikipedia articles with a serving of AI slop on the side and all governed by an outspoken activist, political donor and man who is used to purchasing power and influence. Not exactly a promising start.

As for bias, instead of fretting over Wikipedia, modern day conservatives should be more concerned with how their ideology currently chooses its truth almost exclusively as a result of social media pressures. There might be a few individual holdouts, but as a movement you're long last past the point of intellectual bankruptcy.

The sources of news those on the right choose to indulge in will continue to take them further and further away from the truth. Because taking people like Dunyain and Lozen further from the truth was the point from the beginning.

The reality is Mina Le is a more serious source of news than Tucker or Candace Owens, and by a significant margin. Because I think critically about where and how I consume information.

That may be the dumbest comment I have heard from you . How that reflects in personal responsibility ??

Please enlighten me how the Grokepedia narrative on George Floyd is false what parts

Your right this encounter occurred due to him committing a crime (felony) and resisting arrest . But he had multiple convictions prior

Well i wish the officer was better trained and his partners intervened other than the rookie

Its funny how I am the bad guy for not having sympathy for George Floyd yet a few here had no sympathy for Charlie Kirks death and one even wishing the Trump bullet had not missed

You cannot trust any member of the Trump administration to tell the truth about anything at any time.

You are missing the point. I didn't personally mourn for George Floyd or Charlie Kirk, mainly because I had no personal connection to either person. But intellectually I can have sympathy for both of them and their families because, whatever their flaws as human beings, neither person deserved to be killed, either by law enforcement or a random gunman.

Do you think anyone deserves to be killed?

That's not really "funny," that's just sort of how basic human values work.

I would say deserve to die .Yes I think people that commit multiple murders or rapes deserve to die or killing of a police officer

Do I think George Floyd deserved to die ? No But I also think it was manslaughter not murder

I don’t think the immense length of your george floyd comments throughout the years seems warranted by the distinction between manslaughter and murder.

Using "fringe" is arguably an indicator of bias but if it's echoing claims made in reputable sources (a newspaper article is certainly debatable in that regard) then I would generally consider it to be justified. The complaint about the line "society otherwise took no steps to prevent infection" is not really justified imo though. The declaration literally says "Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal." The whole point of it is that there are steps taken to protect the vulnerable (the "focused protection") and that nothing else needs to be done. The wiki article's description describes that entirely accurately. Using this as an example of "saying things literally not true" (at least I assume that was your example to justify that claim) is absurd.

The issues I mentioned with Grokipedia on the other hand are much greater than nitpicks about word choice that can be considered biased framing. The style of writing is a bit of an academic critique but trying to present as objectively factual with a writing style that implies bias in favour of the article's topic is an issue even if the content is actually accurate and unbiased. The referencing on the other hand is a fundamental issue that calls the entire credibility of the project into question. It references a person's own words when describing the impact that person has had. It's hard to have something more clearly biased than reporting a person's own opinion of their work as fact.

Maybe it will eventually get to the point where it is useful and reliable but from what I've seen it has some fundamental flaws that need addressing; incremental refinements are not going to cut it. Since it's so heavily AI driven it could be that these flaws are largely fixable with prompt engineering but without them (and without the prompts being public) it's going to have a fundamental trustability issue (and that's without even considering the question of the trustability of information provided by LLMs more generally).

Ill consider the topic dead like George Floyd. Never did answer my question what Grokopedia got wrong

Maybe deserve isn't the right word, but if I commit an armed robbery of a bank tomorrow and shoot a hostage, I certainly am engaging in conduct that I know or should know will put me at grave risk of being killed. And I wouldn't expect anyone to feel sorry for me if I ended up getting shot by a security guard or a police officer in that scenario.

That is like saying, "the couple used a condom but otherwise took no steps to prevent pregnancy", implying the couple was negligent in some way.

The phrasing intentionally implies negligence. Same as using the term "fringe".

Wikipedia has a very subjective far left wing bias. It is what it is. If that is your thing, then go ahead and use wikipedia.

If something similar presents itself without this bias, I will use that instead.

And we all will live happily ever after.

Wikipedia has first mover advantage and it’s fit for purpose, but I always found the superusers distasteful for my liking.

I don’t think replacing it with a bot wiki controlled by a real life Lex Lither is the solution.

do grok has a very subjective "something" wing bias ?