God this is just fucking insane. Grok can’t go three sentences without reminding everyone why gender ideology is problematic or whatever. It’s also strangely inconsistent with pronouns.
This paragraph of slop is jaw-droppingly incomprehesible:
In January 2017, Jenner underwent gender confirmation surgery (vaginoplasty), a procedure she had contemplated but delayed until post-announcement, as detailed in her 2024 memoir The Secrets of My Life.[96] These steps comprised the core of the medical transition, involving irreversible alterations to secondary sex characteristics while leaving primary biological male structures—such as XY chromosomes and original genitalia—unmodified until the final surgery.[96]
And it randomly inserts this medical advice into the article:
Biologically, HRT in male-to-female transitions like Jenner’s carries documented risks, including elevated incidence of venous thromboembolism, stroke, and cardiovascular events due to estrogen’s prothrombotic effects, particularly in older individuals initiating therapy after age 65.
Like… okay, even if this is true, why and how is this actually relevant to an article on Caitlyn Jenner? It’s such a transparent attempt by Musk to insert his political views wherever they’re tangentially related.
These interventions approximate but do not replicate female reproductive biology, such as menstruation or gestation, underscoring that transition modifies phenotype without conferring the immutable reproductive dimorphism central to biological sex distinctions.
I’m sorry – what intervention approximates (but does not replicate) menstruation or gestation? Also, how on earth can a procedure “underscore” something? This isn’t literary analysis.
I knew from the title that Grokipedia would be garbage.
Why do we need to know how much it stinks?
Because a lot of people are going to use it, cite it and leverage it.
Wikipedia isn’t a primary source, it’s just a matter of how far below Wookiepedia we’re going to rank Grokipedia and Conservapedia… 😉
in fairness, I would say Conservapedia is even worse than Grokipedia. I can barely read any random paragraph of Conservapedia without wanting to destroy my internet connection. Grokipedia at least has lucid sections, an opiate to mask the hideousness.
At least Conservapedia goes through the effort of trying to appear legitimate and people-powered. That probably makes the disinformation there more dangerous by having the patina of legitimacy but Grokpedia is just so LAZY.
Ah, fair.
If you already knew what your opinion was going to be, why did you bother to click?
We’re all on c/fuck_ai together, we got the same opinion.
Well, the sidebar says this:
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype
It seems to me like making a post exploring just how bad exactly grokipedia is should fit here? Am I mistaken? What is even the point of this community if this is not a good fit?
I mean, even if I knew it would be garbage, I wanted to see how much. The bag isn’t labeled “dead dove” to keep people from looking.
I’m confused. You are now agreeing that you wanted to see how much. But then why did you say this:
I knew from the title that Grokipedia would be garbage.
Why do we need to know how much it stinks?
I’m just a human. Hypocrisy and illogic is just what we do sometimes.
thanks for owning up to the error. appreciated.
“Grokpedia” is so dumb, it’s just page after page of LLM slop. I find it hard to believe even the most bad-faith arguer will treat it as an authority.
And it randomly inserts this medical advice into the article: Biologically, HRT in male-to-female transitions like Jenner’s carries documented risks, including elevated incidence of venous thromboembolism, stroke, and cardiovascular events due to estrogen’s prothrombotic effects, particularly in older individuals initiating therapy after age 65.
I am sure it gets this based on every drug having a list of side effects. Surprised it doesn’t say, Do not have a Vagina installed if you are allergic to Vagina.
Sure. But my point is, If a human wrote this, I’d say it’s a poor editing choice to include this information on an article about an athlete. Perhaps if she had a publicly-documented stroke then this could be relevant (albeit still quite speculative). But it’s not even relevant.
I totally agree with you.
