[ehnto]

How would you know, generally speaking? Factuality online is always subjective, based on a thing someone said, or that you observed, and you are putting trust in the source. Whether you googled it, or AI googled it and generated an explanation, you are trusting the source.

You can influence it so easily with your inputs as well. You could easily, accidentally point it's search toward the searches someone is more likely to be aligned with, but may not actually be fact.

Especially as AI providers implement long term memory or reflections on historic chats, your bias will very strongly influence outcomes of fact checking.

[simianwords]

These are good caveats and questions worth asking. But it doesn't take away my main point - grok is useful in countering false claims and it is accurate very frequently.

[furyofantares]

"distinguishing facts from falsehoods" is so broad to encompass all of scientific and philosophical endeavor. I know they mean something much more narrow, but "fact checking" is also fairly broad.

You probably mean things where the truth is widely known and you should have no trouble sorting it out if you put a little effort in. TFA has nearly zero information about what sorts of things they're talking about here, and clicking around the website I found only a _little_ more info.

[simianwords]

To support my claims, here is a typical example: https://x.com/vlastimilve/status/1967187345641558272?s=46

I didn’t cherry pick it because obviously it’s not that impressive. But it works - it is professional and gives as much information as it can be confident giving.

You said you can influence it etc but clearly it is hard. Sure it is not perfect but I find that it helps reducing fake news if anything.

You are right that for things that are more subtle you can lead it to certain answers. But we must acknowledge that debates that are not fully solved and have subtleties are not exactly relevant to “spreading misinformation”.

[ehnto]

It's possible I'm blocking the AI widget as I don't see it, is it Grok replying with a fact check of the claim?

I think that is good in general, I do, I am just weary that it is still shakey ground. The company behind Grok has clear incentives to influence the output of those fact checks as one example. I am also weary of it always eventually conforming to the vox populi as it ingests the internet firehouse. Leading to the loudest, most prolific voices thus views always being more represented.

[simianwords]

Yes it is replying with a fact check and doing it professionally.

>I am also weary of it always eventually conforming to the vox populi as it ingests the internet firehouse. Leading to the loudest, most prolific voices thus views always being more represented.

I'm okay with this. This is exactly what I want - what the world has converged on as the correct answer. Spreading what is already what the world has converged on is not what I would consider "false information".