Maybe someone is posting links to a webpage somewhere?
I don't have the exact question I asked it, but it was about the use of baby foreskin in beauty products.
I just asked it a similar and more simplified question: "are there beauty products that still use baby foreskin as an ingredient" .. and grok was 1/3 sources .. my initial question it was 3/6 sources.
It's very likely the model didn't stop to question if the game they were playing was something they knew already, and just assumed it was a puzzle created for it.
As a person who is uneducated on this, I’ve always wondered if it isn’t also something to do with large objects that have collided into in the past .. these things would essentially wipe out most everything on the ground planet and force things to re-evolve again and that is why we see similar patterns .. like Carcinisation [0]
It's not asteroid extinction that's causing convergent evolution. All those crabs, anteaters and trees still exist. They're simply very effective forms.
You sound like you had a murder down your block and you are scared (understandably), but if nobody else anywhere had any murders you should understand why they aren't scared.
My carrier lets me issue esims myself on their website. I can login, get a QR code, and scan it on my phone and the service just starts working.
Personally I find this preferable to having to go to a physical location, and the fact that I can issue a new sim card to myself anywhere in the world has been very helpful.
For every one person that uses AI correctly, there are 10,000 people using it incorrectly.
The problem with AI is that you have to already be an authority on the output to know whether it is right and usable or wrong.
Many people out there treat AI as the authority not even knowing whether the output is correct or not.
I know for me that AI has made programming easier for me, but at the same time made my job harder cleaning up other people’s “but the AI told me to do it” messes
It's ironic that the "solution" to the problem is being driven by yet another person that isn't native to Greenland.
While they may be a Greenlandic teacher, it's almost assured that they are teaching western Greenlandic, which is similar to Canadian Inuktitut.
People in the East of Greenland speak a language that has similarities, but is different enough in vocabulary and sounds that it's often considered a separate language and not a dialect.
When people from East and West Greenland come together, they typically speak Danish because they can't understand each other in their own native language.
So we're talking about a country that has 55k people and a portion of them don't even speak the official language.. This guy would have no way of knowing whether something was written poorly by a computer or a poorly educated greenlandic native that maybe isn't so good with the official language.
Given that the majority of the country's citizens do not use the internet at all, it is not even clear what his solution is other than just deciding to be some sort of magic arbiter .. which is not realistic or sustainable.
I wish people on HN would stop acting like “magic arbiter” solutions are “not realistic”, when in reality it’s the only way things have every worked. Are federal judges “magic arbiters”? Yes. Do judges make bad calls? Yes. Do we not like when large numbers of judges who are unfriendly to our side get life appointments? Yes. Has anyone proposed an actual better way of solving these kinds of problems? No.
So to get back to the point: Yes the solution is to appoint someone a magic arbiter, and hope they don’t screw up. The fact that it’s a deeply imperfect way of solving problems doesn’t mean it’s not workable. It just means it will backfire at some point, and someone else will get appointed instead.
> Has anyone proposed an actual better way of solving these kinds of problems? No.
This is the heart of the matter. Nothing is good or bad in a vacuum, but when two things (say, outcomes) can be compared, distintions can be drawn. Noticing flaws in the present can't be contrasted with simple models of "the better solution"; this is comparing apples to oranges. Address both the good and the bad of the present, including the days where nothing noteworthy happens and therefore below the awareness of most people, and the good and the bad of an elaborated counterpart.
As someone who isn't a native English speaker, I believe most people who use the Internet would benefit from simply learning English rather than having an unchecked AI translate things to them. Reddit for example has joined millions of terrible Wordpress websites in auto-translating everything for SEO purposes and Google seems to be fine with this for some reason. It's ironic that it has reached the point that if you search for a "multi-language" plugin for Wordpress, most of the results aren't about letting you write an article in multiple languages, they're just about automatically translating a single article to 30 languages with machine translation.
The reason none of this makes sense to me is that it's intellectually crippling Internet users. Computers and the Internet are tools. If you want something machine translated to you, you can use a tool like Google translate to translate it for you. If the webmaster does this, it robs people from the opportunity to learn to use those tools and they become dependent on third parties to do this for them when they would have a lot more freedom if they just did it themselves (or if they learned English).
A lot of written text out there in other languages isn't available in English, simply put you have many eco chambers of singular languages out there. Most people are ok with just reading what they understand.
You miss an advantage. If everything is inter-translated, then you can do your search in the language you know and find the answer written in a language you didn't know.
> Given that the majority of the country's citizens do not use the internet at all
On what do you base this assertion? I was not able to find up-to-date statistics, but 72% of participants in this survey from 2013 had internet access at home, either via PC or via mobile devices, and another 11% had internet access elsewhere:
> People in the East of Greenland speak a language that has similarities, but is different enough in vocabulary and sounds that it's often considered a separate language and not a dialect.
If this is true, then the easy solution would be to just have two separate wikipedia editions (assuming there is interest).
After all if we have en, sco, jam and ang, surely there is room for two greenlandics. The limitting factor is user interest.
> the easy solution would be to just have two separate wikipedia editions (assuming there is interest)
That's... a reach.
An easier, and much more realistic, solution would be to just have one edition in Danish, which was already noted as the language Greenlanders have in common.
Over half the citations were from Grok .. not even grokipedia .. just “share” pages from questions other people asked.
reply