'Not optimistic he will create anything very useful right now'
Or ever create anything (he's just stealing other people's creations, at best)
'Not optimistic he will create anything very useful right now'
Or ever create anything (he's just stealing other people's creations, at best)
Truly the Thomas Edison of the 21st century.
He thinks he's Nikolai Tesla, but yeah, he's the other guy!
He is not just strealing other people's creations. He is also giving them incredibly lame names.
Remember that Elon overpromises & underdelivers
Literally. With everything. In every business he touches. Yet the stock goes up. It's stupid.
Hmm it seems the speculative market loves speculation rather than actual results...
Jimmy Wales: Libertarian that ended up creating perhaps the most successful collectivist project of all time.
this is a perfect example of why we should always allow an escape space for everyone. Sometimes that person in the space you are polar opposed too will create something that defies even their own rules
In what way does Wikipedia defy Jimmy Wales own rules?
I consider myself libertarian and absolutely love Wikipedia! In fact, if I didn't have to work, I'd work on FOSS full time.
Libertarians have no issues with collectivism, they only have issues with forced collectivism. Libertarians love private unions, co-ops, non-profits, etc.
That's how most libertarians I've talked to think. There are some people who call themselves libertarians who actually just want the government out of the way so mega corps can control everything, but i don't think Jimmy Wales is one of them.
There's an element of vibe contrarianism in any pronounced political ideology. Meaning that libertarians often hate what they perceive as anti-libertarian, communists often hate what they perceive as anti-communist, and so on.
In that regard yes, there are plenty of libertarians who just want to kill anything with leftist vibes with fire.
But the world of ideas is far richer than the existing conventions and established ideologies, and every person has their own trajectory in that.
Did those "libertarians" vote for Trump last election? What's their take on Jan 6? I have a sneaking suspicion they're conservatives who like weed, not libertarians.
You're right that libertarians don't want government involved in as many parts of daily life as possible. That's where the support comes from for things like drug legalization/decriminalization, gay marriage, gun rights, etc. Wikipedia is part of that, it was created and is maintained independently, and whether it's funded by donations, ads, or subscriptions is irrelevant. As long as government isn't involved, libertarians are happy.
Here's a quote I love from Penn Jillette (from memory, may have mistakes):
Government should only use violence for things I am willing to use violence for. I would use violence to stop a rape or a murder. I would not use violence to build a library.
He goes on say he supports libraries and would fund one if someone came around asking for donations.
That's pretty much exactly what Wikipedia is, it's a privately created, publicly available library that runs on donations, which is a libertarian wet dream. If everything good could be funded that way (charities for a social safety net, police for law enforcement, military for national defense, etc), that would be a libertarian utopia. Since that's not feasible, libertarians want as many functions as possible to exist outside of government and carefully audit the rest.
I personally believe a social safety net cannot be independent, so I support something like UBI to replace our coercive and often subjective welfare programs and ensure everyone is above the poverty line. I also believe small companies should have legal protections (e.g. limited liability structures we have today), and large companies shouldn't (they can buy insurance if they want), so a lawsuit or bankruptcy could go after shareholder and executive team assets.
Many libertarians disagree with me on specifics (a libertarian's most bitter rival is another libertarian), but we agree on the foundational idea that less is more when it comes to government.
Lemmy itself is a good example of this. Most of the userbase heavily disagrees with the main developers' political opinions, yet the software works well for everyone.
Reading his Wiki page, he does sound rather reasonable. Support for Occupy Wallstreet, running as a UK Labour candidate, openly calling not to elect Trump and also calling the US Libertarian Party "lunatics".
He also gave the example of a German Wiki community member who wrote a program to verify the ISBN numbers of books cited, and was able to trace notable mistakes to one person. That person ultimately confessed they had used ChatGPT to find citations for text references and the LLM “just very happily makes up books for you,” Wales said.
Well this won't be a problem with Grokipedia, because it only uses sources that are available online as pure text (I'm pretty sure not even PDFs are used by it).
Wales thinks the public and the media often give Wikipedia too much credit. In its early days, he says, the site was never as bad as the jokes made about it. But now, he says, “We are not as good as they think we are. Of course, we are a lot better than we used to be, but there is still so much work to do.”
Amen, it's nice to see the level-headedness.
It's going to become an AI written clone of Wikipedia with all the personal opinions of Elon mixed in. I don't see it going anywhere.
If you check it out, its not going to become that because it IS that. Its all AI rewritten articles from Wikipedia with Elon's alt right biases applied. Some of the less political pages aren't even really rewrites but just copy/pastes
It will be a another propaganda mouthpiece, and have all the credibility of Fox News.
Or conservapedia, the fox news of wikipedias.
doesn’t mean it can’t do damage - like fox news
It'll effect things as much Conservapedia does. A laughing stock to gawk at and nothing more.
I bet by the end of next year it's dead.
One key difference: Conservapedia was young earth creationist, Grok is not. That amount of difference unfortunately enough to convince a lot of average Joes of credibility.
Conservatives will use the nazipedia and everyone else will mock them for it
It’s not about making something useful. He and a few others are cloning everything any of their cult might use to further fence them in from external information and entertainment.
They’re having a harder time in entertainment, because artists tend to be more liberal, but they’re gaining ground there, too. After a certain point, they’ll just radically censor everything else.
This is what scares me. The fact that they are doing it at all. It's providing more spaces for people to shut themselves in completely with the information they want. These fucking desperate bigots will never be satisfied until the entire world reflects their bigoted ass beliefs, but since that will never happen they will fight a civil war for Elon out of sheer ignorant self obsession, instead
Anybody going there to test "how bad it is" is giving them traffic, which they can use to brag about its success. Personally, I'd rather completely ignore it and disregard whoever mention it one day as a source, which will never happen hopefuly.
So set the VPN to Iran so it looks like it's only popular with 'ayrab terrorists' to take always his talking point?
Elon Musk NEVER creates anything very useful as of now
Elon Musk NEVER creates.
All he has to do is force it in front of people's eyes instead of Wikipedia. It doesn't actually have to be useful, just in the way.
They needed a safe space for their ideas. Less scary stuff like pronouns that make their brains hurt
Ultimately, this could highlight the incredibly high value of wikipedia as a common ressource, and might lead to better things there.
Maybe.
Awww... I wish I had that level of optimism.
What does Grokipedia say on the genocide in South Africa?
well, the website only has one button, that redirects to the actions of Grokipedia with the options to buy or sell some.
I guess you have to interact with their actions to use the thing?
The first thing I noticed about grokipedia is that it doesn't do a good job at qualifying the strength of sources.
That was an intentional design choice no?
I mean basically it's "Conservapedia but it takes itself seriously".
It's been fun watching Elon go from space Jesus to shorthand for any billionaire vanity project that will amount to nothing.
Anyone who knew much about space knew that was nonsense from the start, as colonizing a subantarctic volcano is literally more practical than colonizing Mars.
And that's assuming paradigm shifts in spaceflight. Turns out, they did not materialize at all. With SABRE air-breathing engines and Virgin-style stratolaunches dead, things actually went way worse than I expected years ago.
Don't get me wrong. SpaceX is great, Starship is cool, research in space is awesome. But ever since I've first read Musk's public thoughts, he struck me as 'not scientifically grounded,' and I wondered how that incongruity would shake out.
TL;DR: Truth never mattered, and it still doesn't :(
How long until AI models start training off Grokipedia, and we have the biggest game of hallucination telephone?
A collection of hallucinations sounds more like a bad piece of comedy
They are going to clone Wikipedia, then use some flimsy excuse to get it shut down under something like "anti conservative bias". He'll position Nazipedia to replace it.
It will burst into flames, like his cars
All cars can catch fire, some more often, others more intensely. Doesn't matter if it's a swastikar or not.
Instead of pitting EVs against ICE, let's all push to reduce car dependence and instead encourage the development of public transit!
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.