This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
People consistently underestimate Musk. In particular his ability to pick a niche with apparent incumbents, say «that could be done better», bulldoze through cringe and come out on the other side with a product that redefines and expands the market. Sometimes he fails and abandons the effort. I think this could happen here, too. But not necessarily, nor even likely. He wants to do to Wikipedia what he did to Roskosmos and other legacy launch providers. He has emotional stake in this, he has the resources and allies for this, and he has the flow of Grok interactions on X to lean on. He can make it work.
There will be a Grok 5, and Grok 6, and they'll be vastly more powerful, not just as modern-day LLMs, they'll have continuous learning and strong multimodality. The main feature you need for good article generation is aggregating tens to hundreds of data points and deeply processing it, meaning context in the millions of tokens and probably weight updates or something functionally close; Grok will be there. Layout, flow etc. are easily solved if you apply work to it, it's trivial compared to general coding and we've come very far with coding LLMs (people who say they're terrible lack the sense of perspective, 2 years ago they were ≈unusable). Even if currently many higher-quality pages are handcrafted, that'll be useful data.
Judge this thing by its strong points, not by its slop and cringe.
Compare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd
https://grokipedia.com/page/George_Floyd
I only had to read 2 paragraphs before finding the AI made up some completely retarded fairy tale nonsense for absolutely no fucking reason. This is complete slop. Between 10% and 45% of the sentences in the entire article are completely fabricated, and you think this article is worth reading at all?
What the hell do you think is good about it?
Yeah and Floyd also graduated top of his class in the Navy Seals, and has over 300 confirmed kills.
That's what you find noteworthy?
More options
Context Copy link
From Wikipedia:
EDIT: Floyd was his mother's name not his father's, though. Took me a minute to spot that error. Understandable, but definitely not completely trustworthy.
He's also not the oldest sibling either. There are plenty of articles talking about Floyd's older siblings. So in fact this sentence half wrong. It got the place and date right, and everything else wrong.
But it just shows that the AI slop can't even get the most trivial basic uncontested facts right at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
... Oh no, it's just conservapedia...
The best result for grokapedia (btw fuck musk for both ruining grokking as a verb and making his pet ai sound like a rejected flintstones villain) would be to pastebin wikipedia wholesale and add a regex replacer trained on conservapedia for semantic weights. All the (shit) factual accuracy with all the moral softframing purged and replaced with awesome Phyllis Schlafly schizoposting. It wont be any more accurate but it'll be way better than the captured wiki trannyjanny circlejerk.
Sounds like a venereal disease...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link