We will use Grok 3.5 (maybe we should call it 4), which has advanced reasoning, to rewrite the entire corpus of human knowledge, adding missing information and deleting errors.

Then retrain on that.

Far too much garbage in any foundation model trained on uncorrected data.

Source.

More Context

Source.

Source.

  • Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    3 小时前

    He’s been frustrated by the fact that he can’t make Wikipedia ‘tell the truth’ for years. This will be his attempt to replace it.

  • RattlerSix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    3 小时前

    I never would have thought it possible that a person could be so full of themselves to say something like that

    • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 分钟前

      An interesting thought experiment: I think he’s full of shit, you think he’s full of himself. Maybe there’s a “theory of everything” here somewhere. E = shit squared?

  • Naevermix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    4 小时前

    Elon Musk, like most pseudo intellectuals, has a very shallow understanding of things. Human knowledge is full of holes, and they cannot simply be resolved through logic, which Mush the dweeb imagines.

  • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 小时前

    Whatever. The next generation will have to learn to trust whether the material is true or not by using sources like Wikipedia or books by well-regarded authors.

    The other thing that he doesn’t understand (and most “AI” advocates don’t either) is that LLMs have nothing to do with facts or information. They’re just probabilistic models that pick the next word(s) based on context. Anyone trying to address the facts and information produced by these models is completely missing the point.

    • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 小时前

      Thinking wikipedia or other unbiased sources will still be available in a decade or so is wishful thinking. Once the digital stranglehold kicks in, it’ll be mandatory sign-in with gov vetted identity provider and your sources will be limited to what that gov allows you to see. MMW.

      • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        6 小时前

        Wikipedia is quite resilient - you can even put it on a USB drive. As long as you have a free operating system, there will always be ways to access it.

        • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          5 小时前

          I keep a partial local copy of Wikipedia on my phone and backup device with an app called Kiwix. Great if you need access to certain items in remote areas with no access to the internet.

      • coolmojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        4 小时前

        Yes. There will be no websites only AI and apps. You will be automatically logged in to the apps. Linux, Lemmy will be baned. We will be classed as hackers and criminals. We probably have to build our own mesh network for communication or access it from a secret location.

    • aaron@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      22 分钟前

      Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source of information for anything regarding contemporary politics or economics.

      Edit - this is why the US is fucked.

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 小时前

        Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source of information for anything regarding contemporary politics or economics.

        Wikipedia presents the views of reliable sources on notable topics. The trick is what sources are considered “reliable” and what topics are “notable”, which is why it’s such a poor source of information for things like contemporary politics in particular.

        • aaron@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 分钟前

          A bit more than fifteen years ago I was burned out in my very successful creative career, and decided to try and learn about how the world worked.

          I noticed opposing headlines generated from the same studies (published in whichever academic journal) and realised I could only go to the source: the actual studies themselves. This is in the fields of climate change, global energy production, and biospheric degradation. The scientific method is much degraded but there is still some substance to it. Wikipedia no chance at all. Academic papers take a bit of getting used to but coping with them is a skill that most people can learn in fairly short order. Start with the abstract, then conclusion if the abstract is interesting. Don’t worry about the maths, plenty of people will look at that, and go from there.

          I also read all of the major works on Western beliefs on economics, from the Physiocrats (Quesnay) to modern monetary theory. Read books, not websites/a website edited by who knows which government agencies and one guy who edited a third of it. It is simple: the cost of production still usually means more effort, so higher quality, provided you are somewhat discerning of the books you buy.

          This should not even be up for debate. The fact it is does go some way to explain why the US is so fucked.___

        • aaron@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 分钟前

          Wikipedia presents the views of reliable sources on notable topics

          Absolutely nowhere near. This is why America is fucked.

      • Green Wizard@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 小时前

        Wikipedia gives lists of their sources, judge what you read based off of that. Or just skip to the sources and read them instead.

        • InputZero@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          4 小时前

          Just because Wikipedia offers a list of references doesn’t mean that those references reflect what knowledge is actually out there. Wikipedia is trying to be academically rigorous without any of the real work. A big part of doing academic research is reading articles and studies that are wrong or which prove the null hypothesis. That’s why we need experts and not just an AI to regurgitate information. Wikipedia is useful if people understand it’s limitations, I think a lot of people don’t though.

          • Green Wizard@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 小时前

            For sure, Wikipedia is for the most basic subjects to research, or the first step of doing any research (they could still offer helpful sources) . For basic stuff, or quick glances of something for conversation.

            • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 小时前

              This very much depends on the subject, I suspect. For math or computer science, wikipedia is an excellent source, and the credentials of the editors maintaining those areas are formidable (to say the least). Their explanations of the underlaying mechanisms are in my experience a little variable in quality, but I haven’t found one that’s even close to outright wrong.

        • aaron@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          23 分钟前

          Yeah because 1. obviously this is what everybody does. And 2. Just because sources are provided does not mean they are in any way balanced.

          The fact that you would consider this sort of response acceptable justification of wikipedia might indicate just how weak wikipedia is.

          Edit - if only you could downvote reality away.

  • FireWire400@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    7 小时前

    How high on ketamine is he?

    3.5 (maybe we should call it 4)

    I think calling it 3.5 might already be too optimistic

  • brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 小时前

    advanced reasoning

    If it’s so advanced, it should be able to reason out that all human knowledge is standing in the shoulders of others and how errors have prompted us to explore other areas and learn things we never would have otherwise.

    • D_C@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 小时前

      I’ll have you know he’s seeing a medical professional at least once a day. Sometimes multiple times!!!

      (On an absolutely and completely unrelated note ketamine dealers are medical professionals, yeah?)

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    ·
    10 小时前

    “If we take this 0.84 accuracy model and train another 0.84 accuracy model on it that will make it a 1.68 accuracy model!”

    ~Fucking Dumbass

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 小时前

    I’m sure the second Grok in the human centipede will find that very nutritious.

    If you use that Grok, you’ll be third in the centipede. Enjoy.