I find that GROK defaults to establishment sources. For COVID issues the public health lies are presented as truthful when starting a thread. After providing information from reputable sources which contradict the public health lies, the answers are more truthful. Not sure it is audience engagement or it accepts the new data.
Any new thread is like talking to another person, misconceptions have to be cleared up again.
The LLM or whatever the term is never gets updated by users. Any improvements or new information has to come from the central database.
I also use it to double check grammar, logic, and quick searches.
David, your book was excellent. It infuriated me again how dishonest public health, media, and government was during the COVID fiasco.
The epistemic problem you highlight here is much deeper than the Wikipedia, although you are very much on the ball with the pathology you highlight here - that Wikipedia's politically-adjacent pages are skewed by the cadre of editors in control of its pages, and that this therefore sets the stilted responses that LLMs produce. 'Whoever controls search controls thought' is an adage of mine, and LLMs only accelerate search by eliminate the 'contrast and compare' stage and giving an answer dripping with unearned certainty.
I am a little surprised to read you suggesting equipoise between zoonotic spillover and 'lab leak', to be honest, given the abundance of material demonstrating that the Proximal Origins paper was put in motion to draw attention away from the EcoHealth Alliance funding of research at the Wuhan institute, not to mention the complete absence of any evidence of an intermediary species that the zoonotic spillover hypothesis absolutely requires for its legitimacy. I try to maintain a high degree of agnosticism in all scientific topics, but on this one the leap of faith required to keep zoonotic spillover in play is not only implausibly high, it requires entirely ignoring the paper trail behind Proximal Origins. I respect everyone's freedom of belief, but in this case I find your wording "the demonstrable validity of both theories" a little surprising. There's a theory and a hypothesis in need of further evidence here, not two theories enjoying equipoise. (However, I do agree with your footnote that if we are going complain about racism in this context the 'wet market' hypothesis is hardly innocent!)
Finally, and please forgive this shameless plug, may I invite you and your readers to check out my 2016 book of epistemology Wikipedia Knows Nothing, which just received a second edition this April from Play Story Press. It is a short read, explores both the issue of the Wikipedia and the more general problem of contemporary knowledge, and is even available as a free PDF for anyone who prefers not to read a paper book. A short read that challenges what we mean by knowledge:
“‘Whoever controls search controls thought' is an adage of mine, and LLMs only accelerate search by eliminate the 'contrast and compare' stage and giving an answer dripping with unearned certainty.” — Well said!
Re pandemic origin: I believe the evidence weighs heavily toward a lab leak. However, I appreciate there are a sufficient number of scientists (perhaps the majority?) who disagree with that view, and the purpose of this article was not to litigate the validity of each theory, but rather to cite the different views and how they are not equally reflected in Wikipedia and LLMs.
Great Post.. I have had similar experiences with regards to energy (electricity) issues with the AI platforms, many, many times. After patiently spending time "educating the AI", they usually do come around to a better, more balanced perspective, but never do lose their initial view, no matter the degree of error. Following up a day or two later, it was unfortunate to find that the new balanced perspective is gone, and it has reverted to its old analysis. I'm usually not a conspiracy believer, but I can't help but think that the term "brainwashing" fits what I have experienced.
Someone really needs to fill you in so you don't find yourself in trouble at parties by saying the wrong thing. It is also racist to question anything that comes from Wikipedia, NPR, the New York Times, or any of the other sources on the approved list. Be careful out there! It is best to keep the Lego Movie theme song playing in your head, but swap "Racist" in for "Awesome" and before you speak about anything other than the weather, the wedding or the weekend, consider this fundamental truth of modern life.
I came accross this issue of organised disinformation coming from the same outlets on such diverse issues as Jihadism, vaccines and climate. My conclusion, however, differs from yours. This has nothing to do with ideology but fundamentally with business. Big world disinformation powers like the pharmaceutical, Jihadi and energy conglomerate use the same big disinformation outlets, made of foundations registered in tax havens pseudo-NGO, networks of press agents and knowledge producing outlets. So this is why the sanity of Jihad, the virus pangolim theory and the climate urgency all come together.
It’s amazing, post-lockdowns, to see how eager people are to outsource their thinking.
I find that GROK defaults to establishment sources. For COVID issues the public health lies are presented as truthful when starting a thread. After providing information from reputable sources which contradict the public health lies, the answers are more truthful. Not sure it is audience engagement or it accepts the new data.
Any new thread is like talking to another person, misconceptions have to be cleared up again.
The LLM or whatever the term is never gets updated by users. Any improvements or new information has to come from the central database.
I also use it to double check grammar, logic, and quick searches.
David, your book was excellent. It infuriated me again how dishonest public health, media, and government was during the COVID fiasco.
Dear David,
The epistemic problem you highlight here is much deeper than the Wikipedia, although you are very much on the ball with the pathology you highlight here - that Wikipedia's politically-adjacent pages are skewed by the cadre of editors in control of its pages, and that this therefore sets the stilted responses that LLMs produce. 'Whoever controls search controls thought' is an adage of mine, and LLMs only accelerate search by eliminate the 'contrast and compare' stage and giving an answer dripping with unearned certainty.
I am a little surprised to read you suggesting equipoise between zoonotic spillover and 'lab leak', to be honest, given the abundance of material demonstrating that the Proximal Origins paper was put in motion to draw attention away from the EcoHealth Alliance funding of research at the Wuhan institute, not to mention the complete absence of any evidence of an intermediary species that the zoonotic spillover hypothesis absolutely requires for its legitimacy. I try to maintain a high degree of agnosticism in all scientific topics, but on this one the leap of faith required to keep zoonotic spillover in play is not only implausibly high, it requires entirely ignoring the paper trail behind Proximal Origins. I respect everyone's freedom of belief, but in this case I find your wording "the demonstrable validity of both theories" a little surprising. There's a theory and a hypothesis in need of further evidence here, not two theories enjoying equipoise. (However, I do agree with your footnote that if we are going complain about racism in this context the 'wet market' hypothesis is hardly innocent!)
Finally, and please forgive this shameless plug, may I invite you and your readers to check out my 2016 book of epistemology Wikipedia Knows Nothing, which just received a second edition this April from Play Story Press. It is a short read, explores both the issue of the Wikipedia and the more general problem of contemporary knowledge, and is even available as a free PDF for anyone who prefers not to read a paper book. A short read that challenges what we mean by knowledge:
https://playstorypress.org/books/wikipedia-knows-nothing/
The second edition also features a wonderful new foreword by Nietzsche scholar Babette Babich.
Stay wonderful,
Chris.
“‘Whoever controls search controls thought' is an adage of mine, and LLMs only accelerate search by eliminate the 'contrast and compare' stage and giving an answer dripping with unearned certainty.” — Well said!
Re pandemic origin: I believe the evidence weighs heavily toward a lab leak. However, I appreciate there are a sufficient number of scientists (perhaps the majority?) who disagree with that view, and the purpose of this article was not to litigate the validity of each theory, but rather to cite the different views and how they are not equally reflected in Wikipedia and LLMs.
Will check out your book!
Learn to edit Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction
Fix the facts. Provide citations.
Great Post.. I have had similar experiences with regards to energy (electricity) issues with the AI platforms, many, many times. After patiently spending time "educating the AI", they usually do come around to a better, more balanced perspective, but never do lose their initial view, no matter the degree of error. Following up a day or two later, it was unfortunate to find that the new balanced perspective is gone, and it has reverted to its old analysis. I'm usually not a conspiracy believer, but I can't help but think that the term "brainwashing" fits what I have experienced.
Someone really needs to fill you in so you don't find yourself in trouble at parties by saying the wrong thing. It is also racist to question anything that comes from Wikipedia, NPR, the New York Times, or any of the other sources on the approved list. Be careful out there! It is best to keep the Lego Movie theme song playing in your head, but swap "Racist" in for "Awesome" and before you speak about anything other than the weather, the wedding or the weekend, consider this fundamental truth of modern life.
I came accross this issue of organised disinformation coming from the same outlets on such diverse issues as Jihadism, vaccines and climate. My conclusion, however, differs from yours. This has nothing to do with ideology but fundamentally with business. Big world disinformation powers like the pharmaceutical, Jihadi and energy conglomerate use the same big disinformation outlets, made of foundations registered in tax havens pseudo-NGO, networks of press agents and knowledge producing outlets. So this is why the sanity of Jihad, the virus pangolim theory and the climate urgency all come together.