This was useful information for me! Though I must criticize for using an AI to judge an AI. Also was Grok mainly funded by Elon Musk? Grok lets me click a link and not get sent to references which is great.
Comparing the page on composer Tchaikovsky. Wikipedia references books and PHD dissertations. Grok may be very good at finding in depth sources but at the same time it doesn't vet them as well. It cited tchaikovsky-research.net, a wiki, which may be very in depth and has lots of sources but no editorial over-site or history of being reliable. It does claim to be written by foremost historians on the subject. Wikipedia can't reference other wikis but uses offline written material (books) that Grok cant. Also Wikipedia uses magazines and newspapers which is something Grok doesn't seem to either. Grok's links lead to sites where the music can be listened to.
When looking for a page on reasoning Grok offers a bunch of specific types of reasoning not a single page on the subject.
I have an even better idea than Grok wiki. Kialo.com manages notability issues without requiring editors and so their bias. It also manages to let no one be left out or wonder if anything was left out. Detail gets put up a tree or voted very low so as not to bother those who are not looking for it. User can decide who's votes count so there is no mass or bot bias either. Same methods can be used on very unpopular ideas. An essay internet page can be built out of Kialo's outlines (usually of debates) based on preset preferences. As the user reads they can change those preferences for specific sections to go into more or less depth and controversy. Right and as a debate site Kialo courts controversy.
For extra fun, include Conservapedia in your comparison 😀
I'm not sure what the point of having an AI-generated reference site is: Can't you just ask the AI for an up-to-date summary on a topic? Then you can get an article that's tailored to your need (e.g. do I just want to know if the Earth is flat, or am I interested in the controversy, how much detail do I want etc),
It's true that you might as well use an LLM, but Grokipedia is essentially a pre-computed version of the topic. Also, presumably the people behind Grokipedia took the trouble to make very good prompts, double-check references, etc. in a way that would be difficult for a normal person.
Richard, there’s so much eye-opening info in this post. Thank you, after a quick read I’ll definitely be back to it to study in more detail.
This was useful information for me! Though I must criticize for using an AI to judge an AI. Also was Grok mainly funded by Elon Musk? Grok lets me click a link and not get sent to references which is great.
Comparing the page on composer Tchaikovsky. Wikipedia references books and PHD dissertations. Grok may be very good at finding in depth sources but at the same time it doesn't vet them as well. It cited tchaikovsky-research.net, a wiki, which may be very in depth and has lots of sources but no editorial over-site or history of being reliable. It does claim to be written by foremost historians on the subject. Wikipedia can't reference other wikis but uses offline written material (books) that Grok cant. Also Wikipedia uses magazines and newspapers which is something Grok doesn't seem to either. Grok's links lead to sites where the music can be listened to.
When looking for a page on reasoning Grok offers a bunch of specific types of reasoning not a single page on the subject.
I have an even better idea than Grok wiki. Kialo.com manages notability issues without requiring editors and so their bias. It also manages to let no one be left out or wonder if anything was left out. Detail gets put up a tree or voted very low so as not to bother those who are not looking for it. User can decide who's votes count so there is no mass or bot bias either. Same methods can be used on very unpopular ideas. An essay internet page can be built out of Kialo's outlines (usually of debates) based on preset preferences. As the user reads they can change those preferences for specific sections to go into more or less depth and controversy. Right and as a debate site Kialo courts controversy.
For extra fun, include Conservapedia in your comparison 😀
I'm not sure what the point of having an AI-generated reference site is: Can't you just ask the AI for an up-to-date summary on a topic? Then you can get an article that's tailored to your need (e.g. do I just want to know if the Earth is flat, or am I interested in the controversy, how much detail do I want etc),
It's true that you might as well use an LLM, but Grokipedia is essentially a pre-computed version of the topic. Also, presumably the people behind Grokipedia took the trouble to make very good prompts, double-check references, etc. in a way that would be difficult for a normal person.