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
    27
    ·
    1 hour ago

    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
    9
    ·
    56 minutes ago

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

  • Naevermix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    2 hours ago

    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
    48
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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.

    • aaron@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      4 hours ago

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

      • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

      • Green Wizard@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        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
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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
            ·
            2 hours ago

            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
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              30 minutes ago

              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
          4 hours ago

          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.

    • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 hours ago

      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
        22
        ·
        4 hours ago

        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
          ·
          3 hours ago

          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
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

  • brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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.

  • FireWire400@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    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

    • D_C@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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?)

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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.

  • squaresinger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    5 hours ago

    First error to correct:

    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 errors and deleting errors information.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    88
    ·
    8 hours ago

    “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