I read Grokipedia's entire analysis of you, Sayer. Impressive. It coolly reports on your many accomplishments. But it cannot touch on what many hundreds of thousands of GreenMedInfo users and fans have know for years: your life's work has profoundly benefited so many of us and has simultaneously helped us take back our "basic" freedoms. I still don't trust AI, but this is quite a reversal of how other "powers" have used it to date. Some say AI has great potential to truly support Humanity. Perhaps that door has been opened by one tiny crack now. Thanks for this. Namaste
My pleasure! I still read GMI newsletters and articles; they're also great for updating information as well as reminding me of the treasure trove of Nature-based remedies available for the asking. Take care. Namaste
Wikipedia was used to defame people and to distort the truth long before covid. People just didn't notice it until it affected them directly. It's interesting to observe what topics are controlled.
This is just one among many examples of how A.I. more generally, and media, on a more limited scale is subject to corrupt forces that make it potentially a good thing and potentially bad. Like all technology, it will inevitably be put to bad uses by some, and there will be individuals who wish to snuff out the good influences to the extent that they interfere with profit-making. There always was and there always will be manipulators of information for profit. One might point to the Rothschilds during the Napoleonic Wars, betting on Napoleon, and then making a fortune by collapsing the stock market and buying up shares when the truth came out that Napoleon had lost at Waterloo. Or Bill Gates buying stocks of Moderna and Biotech BEFORE the pandemic, and then selling them before their poor efficacy was fully appreciated. The old adage Caveat Emptor might well be extended to Caveat Lector - Let the Reader Beware. Sadly, this advice is frequently ignored by the gullible masses who appear to be following more closely the P.T. Barnum rule -"There's a sucker born every minute."
Many are aware that Wikipedia is very biased and slanted, Years ago, I tried to correct information related to someone in the health field that was incorrect and it wouldn't accept it. Wikipedia really should be held liable for slander that has harmed you immensely. Glad to hear that you have been vindicated by Grokipedia.
thanks for directing us to Grokpedia, which will now become my new source of quick info. And so glad it it there to counterbalance Wikipedia out of existence.
I decided to check Grokipedia to see if my grandfather was listed. He was. His biography was one of the most complete and balanced I have read, except for the one which is book length. There were a few minor errors and some inconsistencies. I will be using Grokipedia in the future.
It truly warms my heart and leaves a sense of hope for humanity and AI when used morally and correctly. Finally ! after so many decades of corruption and deception.
Many homeopaths tried hard, 10-15 years ago, to get a balanced piece about homeopathy on Wikipedia. It was not allowed! So I (and many other people I am sure) stopped using it. After all, if a platform cannot tell the truth about something you know about, how can it be trusted to be telling the truth about anything at all?
The same can be said about the 'Trusted News Initiative' which allows many large and influential media outlets to 'pick and choose' what can be 'trusted'. So the BBC, the Guardian, and many other news sources I trusted, slagged off natural medical therapies, and would not offer the 'right of reply'. So again, it is impossible for anyone to believe anything they say. They became mouthpieces for pharmaceutical medicine, providing free advertising for the drug companies through the publication of any 'news' release they put out. Hence the Covid-19 narrative was so strong within the mainstream media.
I hoped, at the time, that the mistrust these media policies generated would ultimately be counter-productive, and hopefully that 'non-trusted' news sources like yours, and the homeopathic community, would be vindicated in the fullness of time.
Yes, thanks for checking - I was going to do that later. "Slightly less biased" is something most supporters of homeopathy would accept! Pharmaceutical medicine, correctly, sees us as a major competitor. They don't want too many people to know about how safe it is, and how effective it can be.
This happened with EFT and energy psychology too. No matter how many efforts were made to correct the articles, Wikipedia editors changed them back to reflect their misinformed views.
Wow, this gives me an eye-opening new take on AI's Grokipedia! Admittedly, I felt much trepidation about those AI-bots. I figured they are only as reliable as their programmers. So, in view of my skeptical side, I'm going to hold a more optimistic vision that our ever-changing world is slowly moving toward a more civilized version.
One has to be aware that Wikipedia can not be used for any controversial topic. If you see prejudicial terms like pseudoscience, anti-vax, conspiracy theorist, etc. you know to look elsewhere for a balanced assessment.
A surreal vision of functional Technocracy within the existing framework is: In the future all former congress(wo)men stay home. Their Grok-schooled android replacements operating on a stage of fact and reason will henceforth be making the decisions.
A refreshingly optimistic assessment on the upside of AI. An also overdue and well-deserved correction of character assassination!
When “terrain theory” became “germ theory denialism” in Wikipedia, I have up on that platform. Thanks for the redirect.
I read Grokipedia's entire analysis of you, Sayer. Impressive. It coolly reports on your many accomplishments. But it cannot touch on what many hundreds of thousands of GreenMedInfo users and fans have know for years: your life's work has profoundly benefited so many of us and has simultaneously helped us take back our "basic" freedoms. I still don't trust AI, but this is quite a reversal of how other "powers" have used it to date. Some say AI has great potential to truly support Humanity. Perhaps that door has been opened by one tiny crack now. Thanks for this. Namaste
Wow, thank you.
My pleasure! I still read GMI newsletters and articles; they're also great for updating information as well as reminding me of the treasure trove of Nature-based remedies available for the asking. Take care. Namaste
Wikipedia was used to defame people and to distort the truth long before covid. People just didn't notice it until it affected them directly. It's interesting to observe what topics are controlled.
Covid was a tipping point for many so called “truths.” For that, I am grateful, despite it being a very painful awakening.
This is just one among many examples of how A.I. more generally, and media, on a more limited scale is subject to corrupt forces that make it potentially a good thing and potentially bad. Like all technology, it will inevitably be put to bad uses by some, and there will be individuals who wish to snuff out the good influences to the extent that they interfere with profit-making. There always was and there always will be manipulators of information for profit. One might point to the Rothschilds during the Napoleonic Wars, betting on Napoleon, and then making a fortune by collapsing the stock market and buying up shares when the truth came out that Napoleon had lost at Waterloo. Or Bill Gates buying stocks of Moderna and Biotech BEFORE the pandemic, and then selling them before their poor efficacy was fully appreciated. The old adage Caveat Emptor might well be extended to Caveat Lector - Let the Reader Beware. Sadly, this advice is frequently ignored by the gullible masses who appear to be following more closely the P.T. Barnum rule -"There's a sucker born every minute."
Many are aware that Wikipedia is very biased and slanted, Years ago, I tried to correct information related to someone in the health field that was incorrect and it wouldn't accept it. Wikipedia really should be held liable for slander that has harmed you immensely. Glad to hear that you have been vindicated by Grokipedia.
thanks for directing us to Grokpedia, which will now become my new source of quick info. And so glad it it there to counterbalance Wikipedia out of existence.
I decided to check Grokipedia to see if my grandfather was listed. He was. His biography was one of the most complete and balanced I have read, except for the one which is book length. There were a few minor errors and some inconsistencies. I will be using Grokipedia in the future.
It truly warms my heart and leaves a sense of hope for humanity and AI when used morally and correctly. Finally ! after so many decades of corruption and deception.
So thankful for all the digging you do on ALL fronts. Thank you for your work!
Many homeopaths tried hard, 10-15 years ago, to get a balanced piece about homeopathy on Wikipedia. It was not allowed! So I (and many other people I am sure) stopped using it. After all, if a platform cannot tell the truth about something you know about, how can it be trusted to be telling the truth about anything at all?
The same can be said about the 'Trusted News Initiative' which allows many large and influential media outlets to 'pick and choose' what can be 'trusted'. So the BBC, the Guardian, and many other news sources I trusted, slagged off natural medical therapies, and would not offer the 'right of reply'. So again, it is impossible for anyone to believe anything they say. They became mouthpieces for pharmaceutical medicine, providing free advertising for the drug companies through the publication of any 'news' release they put out. Hence the Covid-19 narrative was so strong within the mainstream media.
I hoped, at the time, that the mistrust these media policies generated would ultimately be counter-productive, and hopefully that 'non-trusted' news sources like yours, and the homeopathic community, would be vindicated in the fullness of time.
Perhaps it is now beginning......
Grokipedia is only slightly less biased on homeopathy than Wikipedia. It at least gives more of the evidence supporting homeopathy.
I'm glad you checked. I'll look at that now.
Yes, thanks for checking - I was going to do that later. "Slightly less biased" is something most supporters of homeopathy would accept! Pharmaceutical medicine, correctly, sees us as a major competitor. They don't want too many people to know about how safe it is, and how effective it can be.
This happened with EFT and energy psychology too. No matter how many efforts were made to correct the articles, Wikipedia editors changed them back to reflect their misinformed views.
Wow, this gives me an eye-opening new take on AI's Grokipedia! Admittedly, I felt much trepidation about those AI-bots. I figured they are only as reliable as their programmers. So, in view of my skeptical side, I'm going to hold a more optimistic vision that our ever-changing world is slowly moving toward a more civilized version.
YES!!!
One has to be aware that Wikipedia can not be used for any controversial topic. If you see prejudicial terms like pseudoscience, anti-vax, conspiracy theorist, etc. you know to look elsewhere for a balanced assessment.
This is big news, Sayer. Thank you . . . . . !
A surreal vision of functional Technocracy within the existing framework is: In the future all former congress(wo)men stay home. Their Grok-schooled android replacements operating on a stage of fact and reason will henceforth be making the decisions.