←back to thread

Tim Bray on Grokipedia

(www.tbray.org)
175 points Bogdanp | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
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]
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 #
yappen[dead post] ◴[] No.45781122[source]
[flagged]
LexiMax ◴[] No.45782662{3}[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 #
yappen ◴[] No.45782760{4}[source]
That is a super odd comment and I have no idea why you believe this. Projecting, perhaps?
replies(1): >>45783344 #
1. LexiMax ◴[] No.45783344{5}[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 #
2. yappen ◴[] No.45783434[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 #
3. LexiMax ◴[] No.45783912[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.