Elon Musk wants to rewrite "the entire corpus of human knowledge" with Grok
Technology
199
Beiträge
159
Kommentatoren
4.4k
Aufrufe
-
[My] translation: "I want to rewrite history to what I want".
schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 11:05 zuletzt editiert vonThat was my first impression, but then it shifted into "I want my AI to be the shittiest of them all".
-
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.
::: spoiler More Context
Source.
:::schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 11:07 zuletzt editiert vonNot sure if has been said already. Fuck musk.
-
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.
::: spoiler More Context
Source.
:::schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 11:13 zuletzt editiert vonElon 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.
-
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.
schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 11:18 zuletzt editiert vonFor 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.
-
That was my first impression, but then it shifted into "I want my AI to be the shittiest of them all".
schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 11:33 zuletzt editiert vonWhy not both?
-
asdf
schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 11:35 zuletzt editiert vonSo what would you consider to be a trustworthy source?
-
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.
::: spoiler More Context
Source.
:::schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 11:37 zuletzt editiert vonHe'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.
-
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.
::: spoiler More Context
Source.
:::schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 12:04 zuletzt editiert vonI never would have thought it possible that a person could be so full of themselves to say something like that
-
The plan to "rewrite the entire corpus of human knowledge" with AI sounds impressive until you realize LLMs are just pattern-matching systems that remix existing text. They can't create genuinely new knowledge or identify "missing information" that wasn't already in their training data.
schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 12:16 zuletzt editiert vonTo be fair, your brain is a pattern-matching system.
When you catch a ball, you’re not doing the physics calculations in your head- you’re making predictions based on an enormous quantity of input. Unless you’re being very deliberate, you’re not thinking before you speak every word- your brain’s predictive processing takes over and you often literally speak before you think.
Fuck LLMs- but I think it’s a bit wild to dismiss the power of a sufficiently advanced pattern-matching system.
-
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.
schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 12:26 zuletzt editiert vonThey may laugh now, but you're gonna kick ass when you get isekai'd.
-
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.
schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 12:29 zuletzt editiert von warl0k3@lemmy.worldThis 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.
-
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.
::: spoiler More Context
Source.
:::schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 13:32 zuletzt editiert vonUnironically Orwellian
-
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.
::: spoiler More Context
Source.
:::schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 13:57 zuletzt editiert vonI'm just seeing bakes in the lies.
-
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.
schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 14:30 zuletzt editiert von aaron@infosec.pubasdf
-
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.
schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 14:33 zuletzt editiert von aaron@infosec.pubasdf
-
I never would have thought it possible that a person could be so full of themselves to say something like that
schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 14:37 zuletzt editiert vonAn 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?
-
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.
::: spoiler More Context
Source.
:::schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 15:04 zuletzt editiert vonI remember when I learned what corpus meant too
-
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.
schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 15:12 zuletzt editiert vonUh, just a thought. Please pardon, I'm not an Elon shill, I just think your argument phrasing is off.
How would you know there are holes in understanding, without logic. How would you remedy gaps of understanding in human knowledge, without the application of logic to find things are consistent?
-
asdf
schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 15:12 zuletzt editiert vonAgain, read the rest of the comment. Wikipedia very much repeats the views of reliable sources on notable topics - most of the fuckery is in deciding what counts as "reliable" and "notable".
-
Again, read the rest of the comment. Wikipedia very much repeats the views of reliable sources on notable topics - most of the fuckery is in deciding what counts as "reliable" and "notable".
schrieb am 23. Juni 2025, 15:15 zuletzt editiert von aaron@infosec.pubasdf
