[lapcat]

> Was just making an actual devil's advocate case.

Why? We're not nominating a saint or electing a Pope.

If someone has a certain opinion, they're free to argue it here. There's no need to invent imaginary opinions and pretend to advocate for them when there are so many actual HN users.

[meowface]

We're discussing the central sources of knowledge on the internet and by extension pretty much the epistemological backbones of present human civilization. It's worth being open to other perspectives.

I, a left-leaning person who detests Elon Musk and what he's done to Twitter and who generally trusts and likes Wikipedia, feel no shame or regret in assessing Grokipedia, even if I figured it was just going to be the standard tribalistic garbage (which it indeed turned out to be).

[lapcat]

> It's worth being open to other perspectives.

There's a big difference between listening to other perspectives and inventing other perspectives.

Why not let the believers of other perspectives argue for those perspectives? Wouldn't they be the best advocates? And if nobody believes the perspective you've invented, then perhaps it wasn't worth discussing after all.

Again, we're not really lacking in volume of commenters here.

[meowface]

Maybe "devil's advocate" was the wrong term for me to use. In this thread I am sharing only my honest beliefs and perspectives and was referring to the genuine initial willingness I had to show charitability to the concept of Grokipedia before its release.

[lapcat]

> In this thread I am sharing only my honest beliefs and perspectives

That's one of the reasons I object to the term. People often use "devil's advocate" to state their opinions while providing plausible deniability in the face of criticism of those opinions. Just be honest, stand behind your stated opinions, and take whatever heat comes from that honesty.

[cowboylowrez]

Sure sure, but what happens if someone isn't 100 percent behind their opinions? Initial assessments for instance could very well attempt to see problems or anticipate arguments for or against particular viewpoints.

[lapcat]

That's fine, but you should attribute your certainty or uncertainty, as the case may be, to yourself and not to "the devil."

It's vastly more honest to say, "I'm not sure about this" than "Devil's advocate: blah blah blah". Besides hiding behind the devil, the devil's advocate makes the devil look more confident than he should be.