Comment by graemep
1 day ago
Some other articles are fine, but its horribly unreliable.
I tried subject of the first wikipedia article in my browser history search. It was Malleus Maleficarum. The first part of the text was correct and a decent summary, the rest suddenly switched to an article about an album called Hammer of the Witch by a band called Ringworm.
Images are a weak point. No image of the Sri Lankan flag, a weird one of the flag of the UK, which the caption says "The national flag of the United Kingdom, known as the Union Jack" - bad! Wikipedia has a better image, and an entire article on the Union Flag.
The article on marriage vows (another one I have looked at recently) seems more extensive than WIkipedia's but only because it conflates vows with wedding ceremonies. Wikipedia's interpretation is narrow but covers the subject matter much better. Grokepedia would not have told me what I wanted to know, while Wikipedia does.
I do not see the point. If I want AI written answers a chat interface is better. That might be a real threat to Wikipedia, but an AI written equivalent is not.
The Grokipedia article on Malleus Maleficarum is almost unreadable. It’s long on wordy, thinly sourced disquisitions on marginally relevant topics. The section on historical and theological context is a case in point. It seems to be largely summarizing easily available primary texts like the Bible, not evaluating arguments based on scholarly works. Personally I can’t judge how much of that section even makes sense, despite having a reasonably good background in late medieval history. The Wikipedia article is much more sound.
P.s. humans do this too. Max Weber was pretty thin on the ground when it came to sources as I recall.