Wikipedia

Elon Musk is trying to win the AI ​​race by creating the Wikipedia of AI. We have many questions

by

Grokipediathe new online encyclopedia created by xAI, is now available. The project that Elon Musk has been talking about for some time is just what we expected: a version of Wikipedia in which the content has been generated by Grok, the AI ​​model developed by Musk’s company. And that is precisely the problem. What is Grokipedia. Basically, a copy of Wikipedia in which, as we say, the writing of the texts is done by Grok. The design is simple, with a home page that is a search engine. The articles follow the design of Wikipedia and its structure of different headings and photos. At the moment there do not seem to be any photos in those articles, and Grokipedia does not currently allow users to edit those pages either. If AI makes mistakes, how can we trust AI? The essential question that determines the validity of the idea of ​​Grokipedia is precisely that. Considering that AI makes things up and makes mistakes, what can you expect from an online encyclopedia created by an AI model? Grokipedia on the left, Wikipedia on the right. The PS5 article is an absolute copy of the Wikipedia original. Content “adapted” or directly copied from Wikipedia. Some Grokipedia pages display the message that the content has been adapted from Wikipedia taking advantage of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license. This happens, for example, with the article dedicated to MacBook Air. In other articles such as that of the PlayStation 5 That message falls short because the article is basically the same as Wikipedia’s. An encyclopedia with biases. In Grokipedia there are signs that the theoretical neutrality and objectivity that should be fundamental pillars of such a project are faltering. As indicated in Wiredthere are worrying examples such as the one that talks about the slavery of African Americans in the US in which they talk about “ideological justifications.” In an entry about “gay porn“false information is shown indicating that the proliferation of these contents fueled the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. In the entry on the genre, Grokipedia indicates that “gender refers to the binary classification of humans as males or females based on biological sex.” Wikipedia start entry stating that “Gender is the range of social, psychological, cultural and behavioral aspects of being a man (or boy) or woman (or girl), or a third gender.” In the image and likeness of Elon Musk. and the article about Elon Musk It contains 11,000 words and 300 citations/references compared to the 8,000 and 523 of its Wikipedia version. In both encyclopedias there are curiosities about that article, and for example in Wikipedia there is a section dedicated to Musk’s controversial greeting which is not on Grokipedia. And on the opposite side, Grokipedia does have mention of the “fart guy” controversy which is not available on Wikipedia. This is just the beginning. This version “0.1” of Grokipedia contains 885,000 articles, while Wikipedia has more than 8 million entries. In 2017 Elon Musk posted a tweet in which he praised the work of Wikipedia, but over time that perception changed, probably due to the comments included in the entry about him on Wikipedia. This year tweeted the message “Stop financially supporting Wikipedia until balance is restored!” The danger. Although Elon Musk assures that Grokipedia is open source and anyone can use it for free, it remains to be seen the ability that its users will have to edit articles created by AI. The risk is that this project poses a new attempt to control the conversation, and as he says entrepreneur Gary Marcus, “whoever writes the encyclopedia controls the narrative.” Jimmy Wales warns. The creator of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, indicated in an interview in The Washington Post a few days ago that he was curious to know what Grokipedia would end up being, but that he did not have too many expectations about the result. For him, AI language models “are simply not good enough to write encyclopedia articles. There will be a lot of errors.” Lauren Dickinson, spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation, explained in The Verge how “Wikipedia knowledge is and always will be human.” Problems for the free and human-created encyclopedia. Even so, Wikipedia is threatened by AI. Not only because this legendary online encyclopedia has been the great manual for training AI, but because it is suffering a traffic crisis. The xAI project is the latest attack on that source of knowledge and information, which, from being under control and editing completely carried out by human beings, now cedes those editing and writing tasks to xAI’s AI model, Grok. Image | dvids In Xataka | There is a reason why Wikipedia resists as the last human bastion against AI: because its editors rebelled

Wikipedia opted for AI to summarize her articles. Its editors have avoided it through a rebellion

by

The Wikimedia Foundation has paused an experiment which showed summaries generated by AI in the upper part of the articles after an avalanche of criticism of their own editors. Why is it important. Wikipedia remains one of the last great bastions of human content on the Internet, in front of the survey wave that has degraded other platforms. His model, which is committed to democratic governance, has just stopped an important technological advance. What has happened. He “Simple Summaries” experiment He was born with the intention of making complex articles more accessible through automatic summaries marked as “not verified.” These summaries were made by an aya model of COPE. The editors responded with comments such as “very bad idea”, “my strongest rejection” or simply “Puaj”. The background. OpenAi continues to advance in Your plan to become the next GoogleGoogle herself He has embraced the generative AI even in his search engine. In this environment, Wikipedia has maintained the quality of its articles for its human commitment. In fact, its editors actively filter the content generated by AI, and that makes the platform a reliable information refuge. You know knowing that there will be no Slop. Marked in red, an example of Wikipedia’s summaries. Image: 404 average. Between the lines. These protests speak of something deeper than the simple acceptance of synthetic content: Wikipedia must evolve to attract new generations … … but its editors fear that AI destroys decades of collaborative work. “No other community has dominated collaboration to such a wonderful point, and this would throw it down,” said an editor quoted by 404 average. Yes, but. The Foundation has not ruled out the AI ​​completely, at least for the moment. He has promised that any future function will require “participation of editors” and “human moderation workflows.” It sounds like tactical pause. In addition, the experiment was born precisely from discussions in Wikimania in 2024, when some editors did see this format potential. In summary. The question now is if Wikipedia will be able to maintain its enormous historical relevance, already eroded since Chatgpt reached our lifewithout sacrificing part of the human criterion that distinguishes it. The answer to this question, which will not arrive tomorrow, will be what determines whether Wikipedia remains a reasonably reliable knowledge … or another space in automated internet noise. Outstanding image | Oberon Copeland @seeyinformed.com in Unspash In Xataka | Wikipedia is being filled with content generated by AI. So much, that you already have a team dedicated to finding it

How to use chatgpt or gemini by taking out the information only from Wikipedia as the only source

by

Let’s explain the way you can do Chatgpt consultations using Wikipedia as the only source. Sometimes, when you ask for a thing to artificial intelligence you can make mistakes, and even when you want me to explain something obtaining internet information, you can use unreliable sources to generate the answer. Meanwhile, Wikipedia has been positioned for many years A great source of collective knowledge. Yes, it also has errors, but there are much less. Therefore, we are going to tell you and explain the prompt that you can use both in Chatgpt as in COPILOT, Deepseek either Gemini. Ask the AI ​​to use wikipedia What we want to get is that the artificial intelligence chat we use use wikipedia as the only source to obtain information. In this way, you will look for what you have asked there, you will get written information, and generate an answer based on it. We can meet two problems. The first is that in addition to Wikipedia also use other sources, so that everything will no longer come from a single site. It may also happen that the answer is too technical. We will solve both things with the prompt. This is the prompt that we recommend: Explain to me in a simple way what is XXXX taking the information only from Wikipedia. Here, what you have to do is change the XXXX for what you want me to explain. You can also ask you to explain who a person is, or adapt it in the way you need for the request you have in mind. What we have done in this prompt is to add the “in a simple way” so that the answer it generates is colloquial. Besides, We have added the term only To specify that only use Wikipedia as a source, and that you do not obtain data from any other web page. In Xataka Basics | How to improve chatgpt responses: 9 steps to guarantee higher quality and better sources

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.