As a concept, it's intriguing. In practice, a lot of pieces need to work out just right for this particular instance of the idea to gain traction.
IMHO a few factors need to be met:
* Truthfulness -- granted that many topics have opinions and schisms.
* Reliability (self-healing articles?)
* Ease of use -- I think this needs the most improvement. Search is iffy and navigation unfriendly, IMO.
If nothing else I think the growth of something like a competitor is beneficial on its own. A single "source of truth" is nice, but that's not the age we live in, for better or worse.
I use it, and if you don't like the point of view then make your own AI encyclopedia. I'm fed up of Wikipedia, it's no longer the encyclopedia that anyone can edit since all controversial articles are BLUELOCKed to people who have to make 500 edits outside of their field of interest before they can actually contribute, Wikipedia is doing the same gate keeping that Britannica did. Wikipedia keeps telling established academics and celebrities they are not notable and if you say otherwise they shout COI. Wikipedia needs competition, and they can't keep relying on the gravy train of donations anymore.
One is free as in freedom, the other is beholden to the business of a billionaire with a political agenda.
Ironically, the section "criticism and controversies" on the Grokipedia article on Grokipedia gives a good overview.
https://grokipedia.com/page/grokopedia
Grokipedia seems like a useful product from xAI to me. It is the first major change in how to write an encyclopedia since Wikipedia. On the topics that I have compared, Grokipedia entries are more comprehensive and relevant than Wikipedia ones. The only minus is that it lacks pictures. As an example compare the entries on the Norwegian lake Tinnsjå:
https://grokipedia.com/page/Tinnsj%C3%A5https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinnsj%C3%A5
As a concept, it's intriguing. In practice, a lot of pieces need to work out just right for this particular instance of the idea to gain traction.
IMHO a few factors need to be met:
* Truthfulness -- granted that many topics have opinions and schisms.
* Reliability (self-healing articles?)
* Ease of use -- I think this needs the most improvement. Search is iffy and navigation unfriendly, IMO.
If nothing else I think the growth of something like a competitor is beneficial on its own. A single "source of truth" is nice, but that's not the age we live in, for better or worse.
I use it, and if you don't like the point of view then make your own AI encyclopedia. I'm fed up of Wikipedia, it's no longer the encyclopedia that anyone can edit since all controversial articles are BLUELOCKed to people who have to make 500 edits outside of their field of interest before they can actually contribute, Wikipedia is doing the same gate keeping that Britannica did. Wikipedia keeps telling established academics and celebrities they are not notable and if you say otherwise they shout COI. Wikipedia needs competition, and they can't keep relying on the gravy train of donations anymore.
The Elon Musk–Jeffrey Epstein controversy seems a bot too favorable of elon
"Free encyclopedia service founder disparages competing free encyclopedia service" See also entry for "encyclopedia salesman"
One is free as in freedom, the other is beholden to the business of a billionaire with a political agenda.
Ironically, the section "criticism and controversies" on the Grokipedia article on Grokipedia gives a good overview. https://grokipedia.com/page/grokopedia
Grokipedia seems like a useful product from xAI to me. It is the first major change in how to write an encyclopedia since Wikipedia. On the topics that I have compared, Grokipedia entries are more comprehensive and relevant than Wikipedia ones. The only minus is that it lacks pictures. As an example compare the entries on the Norwegian lake Tinnsjå: https://grokipedia.com/page/Tinnsj%C3%A5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinnsj%C3%A5