Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | josefritzishere's commentslogin

Economics is not a science but it sure likes to pretend that it is with lots of technical jargon. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2013/12/13/economics-scie...

This sounds like a great way to go bankrupt.

I'm sure that won't be misused at all.

I'm sure the AI is not biased and has a diverse training data set accurately representing the war-torn and impoverished countries these asylum seekers are coming from.

I use https://hckrnews.com/ . I prefer new over upvoted.

Every interaction I've had with AI has been negative. It's just not very good.


Its very much everywhere you have large swaths of people pasding through. I distinctly remember my aunt complaining that in the student dorms back in the day, two students bought a whole pig and roasted it in the iron bathtub

Where I studied there was a tradition to throw out the TV out of dorm room window at graduation. Now that were early nineties, ~21" CRT TVs and a 24 storey dorm.

Whether they are paid or not, this represents an existential threat to Wikipedia. Without an army of competent editors, Wikipedia just becomes garbage propaganda like Grokipedia.

[flagged]


There are a bunch of research papers that compare Wikipedia and Grokipedia in some depth, and they've found and interpreted a lot of interesting differences. A couple of recaps from the Wikipedia Signpost, which is the internal newsletter for Wikipedians:

2026-03-10: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...

2026-01-15: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...


Circular references back to Wikipedia? No thanks.

Sure but one is a lot less trustworthy than the other.

> Neither are trustworthy.

Since we’ve all forgotten media literacy, what makes Wikipedia trustworthy is that sources are cited and you can inspect those sources yourself to make a judgement call on the topic at hand.

There was never any such thing as blind trust. We learned in grade school how to evaluate sources and what types of sources are out there (primary and secondary sources, etc).

There is some level of trust in being open, transparent, and without a profit motive. But we recognize as educated people that truth is a matter of perspective, and we can build a complete picture by compiling different perspectives.

But then people like you roll in tossing casual accusations around and I guess your intention is to steer people to far less trustworthy sources than Wikipedia.


The user isn't arguing in good faith here is one of his other comments

>Wikipedia could shut down permanently tomorrow and the world will be a better place.

Wikipedia is a vital resource for the internet and one of humanities supreme achievements. He can certainly have whatever opinion he likes but when has opinions like this he can't be trusted.


Yeah, I have zero good faith towards Wikipedia and the wikipedos who run it.

https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/


good faith arguments, on HN? bro you know what this site is for, right?

If the argument doesn't fit the majority narrative then it's not in good faith. Aka democracy in action.

I've linked in the past to a paper which shows how wikipedos use circular arguments to push a narrative.


I use eb.com and so should you.

So when the cofounder of Wikipedia calls it compromised, is he also arguing in bad faith?


I have no idea what you’re talking about. Maybe some context would help. Is this a cofounder who currently works there?

I don’t think this is directly relevant.


Look up Larry Sanger but not on Wikipedia.

[flagged]


Wikipedia doesn't "ban viewpoints". I'm guessing you're referring to their considering some sources as more reliable than others?

Yes. Exactly. They have a list of sources which cannot be referenced directly or indirectly.

That is enough to discredit them completely.


What source would you include that they don't allow referencing?

Try posting any URL from the Daily Mail. See what happens.

So you would source from Daily Mail?

Maybe.

I'm for viewing all sides of every argument and coming to my own conclusions.

Who are these Wikipedo censors?

Not one of them has the circular objects between their legs to stand behind their Orwellian editorship.


> For most topics the results are the same

Sure, it frequently won't deliberately lie to you.

It often does not replace facts with a party line statement.

Wikipedia is far more trustworthy.


Strongly disagree. Wikipedo editors are allegedly "humans making an impartial judgement call."

Grokipedia is just an algorithm.

Humans without ethics are worse than a badly designed algorithm.


You've now made the claim that wikipedia editors are without ethics.

I see you also included all evidence to back up this baseless claim.


This is the same completely obvious trap every previous president has managed to avoid. Bibi has been asking for a US proxy war with Iran since the Regan administration and now he has it. The US is trapped.

But he doesn't know who he's dealing with this time. The master of the deal himself, Donald Trump!

Let me explain: Trump has no issues making a terrible deal with Iran and leaving Israel to fend for itself. He will allow Iran to keep nuclear material and develop the bomb, while selling oil and collecting tolls from Hormuz if he can in some way spin it as a win. He is sick of this war, can't even continue it anyway and is looking for any exit. The art of the deal, baby!



Nobody likes speed cameras after they get a ticket in the mail.

I actually know a person who has gotten a speed-camera ticket and still supports them.

He was speeding.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: