Most active commenters
  • yappen(6)
  • 9dev(5)
  • LexiMax(3)

←back to thread

Tim Bray on Grokipedia

(www.tbray.org)
175 points Bogdanp | 16 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
generationP ◴[] No.45777297[source]
Wondering if the project will get better from the pushback or will just be folded like one of Elon's many ADHD experiments. In a sense, encyclopedias should be easy for LLMs: they are meant to survey and summarize well-documented material rather than contain novel insights; they are often imprecise and muddled already (look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_tree and see how many conventions coexist without an explanation of their differences; it used to be worse a few years ago); the writing style is pretty much that of GPT-5. But the problem type of "summarize a biased source and try to remove the bias" isn't among the ones I've seen LLMs being tested for, and this is what Elon's project lives and dies by.

If I were doing a project like this, I would hire a few dozen topical experts to go over the WP articles relevant to their fields and comment on their biases rather than waste their time rewriting the articles from scratch. The results can then be published as a study, and can probably be used to shame the WP into cleaning their shit up, without needlessly duplicating the 90% of the work that it has been doing well.

replies(5): >>45777410 #>>45777700 #>>45778169 #>>45778630 #>>45782383 #
__s ◴[] No.45777410[source]
> can probably be used to shame the WP into cleaning their shit up

what if your goal is for wikipedia to be biased in your favor?

replies(1): >>45777805 #
9dev ◴[] No.45777805[source]
No no no, you see, you got it all wrong. If the Wikipedia article on, let’s say, transsexualism, says that’s an orientation, not a disease—then that’s leftist bias. Removing that bias means correcting it to say it’s a mental illness, obviously. That makes the article unbiased, pure truth.
replies(1): >>45778867 #
exoverito[dead post] ◴[] No.45778867[source]
[flagged]
1. tstrimple ◴[] No.45779244[source]
It only seems to be a problem for bigots like you. Trans folks just want to live their lives. Why can’t you leave them the fuck alone?
replies(2): >>45779440 #>>45781122 #
2. ◴[] No.45779440[source]
3. 9dev ◴[] No.45781328[source]
You can’t hold an entire group of people responsible for the actions of a few extremists, unless you want to stop Christians and Muslims as well. And don’t get me started on all the shit men pull off worldwide, yet I don’t see you rallying against heterosexuality?
replies(1): >>45781412 #
4. yappen ◴[] No.45781412{3}[source]
This is the more extreme end of the scale of a general pattern of harassing women for saying "no". Whether that be "no you're not a woman" or "no you're not a lesbian" or "no you can't come in here it's female-only".

At least most Christians and Muslims accept that others don't believe in their religion and, for the most part, don't force them to act as if they do.

replies(2): >>45782661 #>>45785047 #
5. myvoiceismypass ◴[] No.45782661{4}[source]
> At least most Christians and Muslims accept that others don't believe in their religion and, for the most part, don't force them to act as if they do.

I've actually found Christians in America quite to be forcing their beliefs quite loudly upon everyone. Pretty wild to be personally offended by the tiny fraction of a percent that is the trans population (of which an even tinier amount is vocal as you say they are).

replies(1): >>45782744 #
6. LexiMax ◴[] No.45782662[source]
That's not why you are obsessed with trans people. You are terrified that the next woman you ogle covetously or catcall won't have the parts you expect.

You don't care about protecting women. The only thing you care about is protecting your fragile sense of masculinity.

replies(1): >>45782760 #
7. yappen ◴[] No.45782744{5}[source]
But you acknowledge that it is overbearing and undesirable for them to force their beliefs, and if someone called you "bigot" for complaining about this you would probably object, right?
8. yappen ◴[] No.45782760{3}[source]
That is a super odd comment and I have no idea why you believe this. Projecting, perhaps?
replies(1): >>45783344 #
9. LexiMax ◴[] No.45783344{4}[source]
> I have no idea why you believe this.

Because I have thought about why people choose to hyper-focus on trans-folk, and it's one of the few explanations that makes sense, at least for men.

Why would someone say that they're "protecting" women, but advocate against abortion rights, divorce, sufferage, or higher limits on the age of consent to marry?

Why would someone say their religious views are incompatible, but have switched sects twice in the past decade because they disagreed with the direction their previous church was going in?

Why would someone claim to be protecting children from indoctrination yet vote for indoctrination of their own political views?

The contradictory explanations never made sense to me. The self-interested ones do.

replies(1): >>45783434 #
10. yappen ◴[] No.45783434{5}[source]
Well, given that your comment was targeted to me personally and not to the caricature you're describing, I can tell you that every single one of your unfounded assumptions are incorrect.
replies(1): >>45783912 #
11. LexiMax ◴[] No.45783912{6}[source]
Indeed, I did not itemize out every possible rationalization I have seen. The exact shape of the rationalization isn't terribly interesting or germane.

It's the underlying insecurities that those forms of motivated reasoning are covering up for that is far more illustrative.

12. 9dev ◴[] No.45785047{4}[source]
> At least most Christians and Muslims accept that others don't believe in their religion and, for the most part, don't force them to act as if they do.

Just like most trans people accept that others don’t understand their way of life, and, for the most part, don’t force them to act as if they do.

Yet you can’t acknowledge that and pretend all trans people are some kind of opaque mob.

replies(1): >>45785278 #
13. yappen ◴[] No.45785278{5}[source]
So are you saying that most will have no problem at all with this, for example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t
replies(1): >>45788608 #
14. 9dev ◴[] No.45788608{6}[source]
That’s just moving the goalposts. Are you trying to say that in your opinion, trans people should be okay with that?
replies(1): >>45789217 #
15. 9dev ◴[] No.45789302{8}[source]
Tell me again please how someone feeling they have a different sexual identity from their biological body—and acting upon that with a medical procedure—negatively affects others? This isn't a "belief" thing, but a fundamental hurt they carry with them every single day, a profound feeling of wrongness. How on earth could it trouble you, a—supposedly—straight male, that someone doesn't want to feel that way? What do they take away from you? Why do these people need to be suppressed and drowned out as much as possible?
replies(2): >>45789410 #>>45789924 #
16. yappen ◴[] No.45789924{9}[source]
It is about beliefs. If they want to pretend they are the opposite sex, to the point where they end up believing they are, they can do so. If they want to take medication in an attempt to imitate some opposite sex characteristics, because they believe it turns them into the sex they desire to be, they can do that too. Not a problem.

However, if they want to use services and spaces intended only for the opposite sex, that is a problem, and it is where the conflict lies. For women and girls in particular, this takes away their dignity and safety, if any man who says he's a woman gets to use women's spaces.

That's what the men who smashed up that feminist conference (as described in the news article I linked above) were protesting. Women saying no to them on this.

I'm not straight by the way but it wouldn't matter if I was. Not sure why you made that false assumption or thought it relevant.