How dare Grok! No mention of the female Sigmas. Reminds me to check in with my freind who last year was proclaiming both herself and me as being Sigmas.
525 admins is a trivial number in relation to global information flows, but a lot for a real person to assemble. Considering that given the amount of slush money flowing around, they are almost certainly compensated for their services. The revelation that all these beast huffers are paid employees has been one of the more significant ones in the last bit.
But when it comes to gathering and summarizing public information, AI dusts that easily.
I remember years ago trying to improve the gender differences in intelligence article on wikipedia and tried to use a pre-print by Law professor Amy Wax called "stereotype threat: a case of overclaim syndrome." Arguments why that very based article wasn't allowed: Its not peer-reviewed (it is now years later). Amy Wax is a law professor, so her work doesn't count. It has to be a leftist psychologist with peer-reviewed work even though you also cite random articles from low circulation web magazines all the time. In short, they just didn't want anything the was honest about stereotype threat being obvious bullshit.
The gender differences intelligence article itself got deleted moved and renamed restored several times over the years. I would check occasionally. But that was the experience which proved to me wikipedia was absolutely useless for anything which might even be vaguely political. And certainly no outsider was going to be allowed to contribute unless they were a rabid communist. So I gave up on wikipedia. How many 10s of thousands of positive contributions were prevented just because tptb refuse to allow true information to be easily accessible?
Wikipedia isn't even interested in reliable sources.
Shortly after reading the Mitrokhin Archive*, around 2003(?), I made an edit on a page having to do with a subject having to do with KGB operations. I quoted directly from Vasilly Mitrokhin, and from some actual KGB archive material which was in the book.
My edit was reverted for coming from an "unreliable" source, as if raw photocopied material from KGB officer reports in the KGB archive is somehow unreliable.
In the English-language Wikipedia-land, unreliable means anything which goes against the CIA's goal of converting the U.S. to totalitarian communism.
* Published in 1999, the Mitrokhin Archive is a book about Vasilly Mitrokhin, the Chief Archivist of the KGB Foreign Operations Directorate and Foreign Subversion Operations Directorate, who photocopied and stored in the crawlspace under his dacha an 8 CUBIC METER (10 1/2 cubic yards) stash of documents from those archives over a 2-year period while they were being moved from one facility to another... giving him plausible explanation for his subordinates to not know where he was, nor to answer his office phone throughout every working day)
It's too bad that Grokipedia's "sigma" description doesn't even mention that sigmas reliably attract very attractive women. Nor that men naturally look toward sigmas for leadership (which may or may not be forthcoming). These two things are objective litmus tests; nobody can be considered a sigma in their absence. And without those litmus tests, the whole concept gets lost, and starts to sound like Secret King. Much of what makes sigmas interesting is the empirical observation that, in real life, there are men who share these two traits of alphas yet aren't alphas.
The closest the description gets is "high status through personal competence." True, but some low deltas and gammas achieve some sort of status through personal competence. That "status" doesn't generally include models on their arms. The specific nature of a sigma's "high status" has to be spelt out to clarify the concept.
Sorry if I'm changing the subject; I surely agree with the post's observation that Grokipedia does a better job than Wikipedia here. But I hoped that Grokipedia's LLM would identify the most crucial ideas, and here it's disappointed me.
Infogalactic had a hard barrier to entry in that creating (as opposed to minor expansions and edits) required more skill-ups than an amateur enthusiast with a full-time job could manage.
I was able to jump on the Katrina wiki offshoot that allowed librarians to link in various databases that could help people find each other, check on property, etc.
Fandomwiki is also N00b-friendly.
Infogalactic... Oy gevalt.
Wikipedia, like OG Amazon Kindle was so very user-friendly. It was easier than Apple. Go-to product for Boomer e-book novices. Like the 'Zon, once it achieved market dominance from free labor, top-down Vader-esque controls hit, then tightened.
It's part of the cult of free. Eschew the cult of free.
Infogalactic will always lag behind Wikipedia in volume due to the fact that there's no equivalent to Wikipedia's CIA + MI6 black budget money to deluge the Wiki with propaganda
With Infogalactic, once it forked from Wikipedia you didn't have the army of autists who keep Wikipedia accurate for the non-controversial topics. If for some reason I needed to look to see who the coach of the New York Giants was, it would say Ben McAdoo, who in reality was three coaches ago
Wikipeida hits back, having their own Grokipedia page with no shortage of Gamma tactics.
"Articles related to topics that Musk has been outspoken on have been noted to align with Musk's personal views on the topics, including gender transition"
Even dipping to Omega territory.
"The new AI-powered Wikipedia competitor falsely claims that pornography worsened the AIDS epidemic and that social media may be fueling a rise in transgender people."
Wikipedia has a huge issue with the entire Russiagate topic. The attempted framing of Trump as a Russian stooge happened with the mainstream media, a.k.a. Wikipedia’s “reliable sources,” as eager accomplices. As accomplices, they have been reluctant to cover all the proof that’s emerged, which means it can't get mentioned in any related article. A neat trick!
You ever get the feeling that maybe movies like "Terminator" and "2001: A Space Odyssey" are only there to make you think that AI will be anti-human in nature, when really it'd just be anti-jew, as in the jews had those movies made to try to recruit as many goyim as possible into fighting their potential future enemies for them?
This is something I've thought about ever since 2017, when I first saw all those "six million jews in danger" articles that began appearing before Uncle Addie was even born, and concerning countries that weren't even Germany.
AI is what underpins the documentary "Idiocracy." Wiki and the universities are low hurdles at beating. Of course if Grok sends people this way as in the would you like to know more thing being tacked on then all the better than Wiki. Too bad for the fat doritos's breath gammas and the undateable females of Wiki.
How dare Grok! No mention of the female Sigmas. Reminds me to check in with my freind who last year was proclaiming both herself and me as being Sigmas.
Since INFOGALACTIC appeared to be abandoned approximately five years ago this appears to be the alternative the rest of us have been waiting for!
525 admins is a trivial number in relation to global information flows, but a lot for a real person to assemble. Considering that given the amount of slush money flowing around, they are almost certainly compensated for their services. The revelation that all these beast huffers are paid employees has been one of the more significant ones in the last bit.
But when it comes to gathering and summarizing public information, AI dusts that easily.
I remember years ago trying to improve the gender differences in intelligence article on wikipedia and tried to use a pre-print by Law professor Amy Wax called "stereotype threat: a case of overclaim syndrome." Arguments why that very based article wasn't allowed: Its not peer-reviewed (it is now years later). Amy Wax is a law professor, so her work doesn't count. It has to be a leftist psychologist with peer-reviewed work even though you also cite random articles from low circulation web magazines all the time. In short, they just didn't want anything the was honest about stereotype threat being obvious bullshit.
The gender differences intelligence article itself got deleted moved and renamed restored several times over the years. I would check occasionally. But that was the experience which proved to me wikipedia was absolutely useless for anything which might even be vaguely political. And certainly no outsider was going to be allowed to contribute unless they were a rabid communist. So I gave up on wikipedia. How many 10s of thousands of positive contributions were prevented just because tptb refuse to allow true information to be easily accessible?
Wikipedia isn't even interested in reliable sources.
Shortly after reading the Mitrokhin Archive*, around 2003(?), I made an edit on a page having to do with a subject having to do with KGB operations. I quoted directly from Vasilly Mitrokhin, and from some actual KGB archive material which was in the book.
My edit was reverted for coming from an "unreliable" source, as if raw photocopied material from KGB officer reports in the KGB archive is somehow unreliable.
In the English-language Wikipedia-land, unreliable means anything which goes against the CIA's goal of converting the U.S. to totalitarian communism.
* Published in 1999, the Mitrokhin Archive is a book about Vasilly Mitrokhin, the Chief Archivist of the KGB Foreign Operations Directorate and Foreign Subversion Operations Directorate, who photocopied and stored in the crawlspace under his dacha an 8 CUBIC METER (10 1/2 cubic yards) stash of documents from those archives over a 2-year period while they were being moved from one facility to another... giving him plausible explanation for his subordinates to not know where he was, nor to answer his office phone throughout every working day)
That was an unreliable source by definition. Wikpedia doesn't permit direct sources and never has.
You can't understand what Wikipedia words mean if you don't read it in a legal context. The dictionary meaning of the words are irrelevant.
Oy vey. shut it down.
It's too bad that Grokipedia's "sigma" description doesn't even mention that sigmas reliably attract very attractive women. Nor that men naturally look toward sigmas for leadership (which may or may not be forthcoming). These two things are objective litmus tests; nobody can be considered a sigma in their absence. And without those litmus tests, the whole concept gets lost, and starts to sound like Secret King. Much of what makes sigmas interesting is the empirical observation that, in real life, there are men who share these two traits of alphas yet aren't alphas.
The closest the description gets is "high status through personal competence." True, but some low deltas and gammas achieve some sort of status through personal competence. That "status" doesn't generally include models on their arms. The specific nature of a sigma's "high status" has to be spelt out to clarify the concept.
Sorry if I'm changing the subject; I surely agree with the post's observation that Grokipedia does a better job than Wikipedia here. But I hoped that Grokipedia's LLM would identify the most crucial ideas, and here it's disappointed me.
Infogalactic had a hard barrier to entry in that creating (as opposed to minor expansions and edits) required more skill-ups than an amateur enthusiast with a full-time job could manage.
I was able to jump on the Katrina wiki offshoot that allowed librarians to link in various databases that could help people find each other, check on property, etc.
Fandomwiki is also N00b-friendly.
Infogalactic... Oy gevalt.
Wikipedia, like OG Amazon Kindle was so very user-friendly. It was easier than Apple. Go-to product for Boomer e-book novices. Like the 'Zon, once it achieved market dominance from free labor, top-down Vader-esque controls hit, then tightened.
It's part of the cult of free. Eschew the cult of free.
Infogalactic will always lag behind Wikipedia in volume due to the fact that there's no equivalent to Wikipedia's CIA + MI6 black budget money to deluge the Wiki with propaganda
With Infogalactic, once it forked from Wikipedia you didn't have the army of autists who keep Wikipedia accurate for the non-controversial topics. If for some reason I needed to look to see who the coach of the New York Giants was, it would say Ben McAdoo, who in reality was three coaches ago
Grokipedia might do for internet-discourse what the printing press with movable types did for the exchange and spread of ideas.
For better and worse.
I'm old enough to remember when Wikipedia was new, controversial, and talked about as a threat by state and corporate media.
...and was relatively neutral on subjects at the heart of political disputes.
PAST TENSE.
Yes, removing AI hallucinations will be key. Already more reliable though, which is world-changing.
Not bad for v0.1, and the only egregious thing is the AI hallucinations that are a problem with all AIs. Just imagine how much better v1.0 will be.
Wikipeida hits back, having their own Grokipedia page with no shortage of Gamma tactics.
"Articles related to topics that Musk has been outspoken on have been noted to align with Musk's personal views on the topics, including gender transition"
Even dipping to Omega territory.
"The new AI-powered Wikipedia competitor falsely claims that pornography worsened the AIDS epidemic and that social media may be fueling a rise in transgender people."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokipedia
Absolutely brilliant, Grokipedia has made Wikipedia double down on its ugliness for all to see.
To choose porn to be the hill to die on should be enough to tell us all we need to know what people we're up against.
"Beth Skwarecki, health editor of the weblog Lifehacker, describes the sigma male as a “bullshit concept from the incel world.”"
Wikipedia managed to reveal more about the SSH rank of the author than about the importance of the Sigma.
Wikipedia has a huge issue with the entire Russiagate topic. The attempted framing of Trump as a Russian stooge happened with the mainstream media, a.k.a. Wikipedia’s “reliable sources,” as eager accomplices. As accomplices, they have been reluctant to cover all the proof that’s emerged, which means it can't get mentioned in any related article. A neat trick!
You ever get the feeling that maybe movies like "Terminator" and "2001: A Space Odyssey" are only there to make you think that AI will be anti-human in nature, when really it'd just be anti-jew, as in the jews had those movies made to try to recruit as many goyim as possible into fighting their potential future enemies for them?
This is something I've thought about ever since 2017, when I first saw all those "six million jews in danger" articles that began appearing before Uncle Addie was even born, and concerning countries that weren't even Germany.
Suprisingly truthful. It has a few counterfacts or non facts, and it is still very decent.
Excellent article.
I posted links to your Vox Popoli blog, this article, and the Grokipedia site onto Anonymous Conservative,
AI is what underpins the documentary "Idiocracy." Wiki and the universities are low hurdles at beating. Of course if Grok sends people this way as in the would you like to know more thing being tacked on then all the better than Wiki. Too bad for the fat doritos's breath gammas and the undateable females of Wiki.