Elon Musk’s artificial‑intelligence venture xAI has launched Grokipedia, a new online encyclopedia that mirrors Wikipedia’s layout and content style. The site offers a simple search‑driven homepage and article pages with headings, subheadings and citations, but currently limits user editing. Many entries acknowledge that they are adapted from Wikipedia under a Creative Commons license, and some appear nearly identical to their Wikipedia counterparts. xAI claims the platform includes AI‑generated fact‑checking, though critics note the challenges of AI‑produced “facts.” The Wikimedia Foundation’s spokesperson, Lauren Dickinson, emphasized Wikipedia’s longstanding role as a trusted, nonprofit knowledge source. Leia mais →

A study by science journalists for the AAAS examined how well ChatGPT can summarize scientific papers. Reviewers consistently gave the AI‑generated briefs low scores for relevance, compellingness and factual accuracy. The model often conflated correlation with causation, omitted crucial context, and used exaggerated language like “groundbreaking.” Journalists concluded that ChatGPT does not meet the quality standards required for scientific briefings and would need extensive fact‑checking before use. Leia mais →

A study by science journalists for the AAAS examined how well ChatGPT can summarize scientific papers. Reviewers consistently gave the AI‑generated briefs low scores for relevance, compellingness and factual accuracy. The model often conflated correlation with causation, omitted crucial context, and used exaggerated language like “groundbreaking.” Journalists concluded that ChatGPT does not meet the quality standards required for scientific briefings and would need extensive fact‑checking before use. Leia mais →

A study by science journalists for the AAAS examined how well ChatGPT can summarize scientific papers. Reviewers consistently gave the AI‑generated briefs low scores for relevance, compellingness and factual accuracy. The model often conflated correlation with causation, omitted crucial context, and used exaggerated language like “groundbreaking.” Journalists concluded that ChatGPT does not meet the quality standards required for scientific briefings and would need extensive fact‑checking before use. Leia mais →

A study by science journalists for the AAAS examined how well ChatGPT can summarize scientific papers. Reviewers consistently gave the AI‑generated briefs low scores for relevance, compellingness and factual accuracy. The model often conflated correlation with causation, omitted crucial context, and used exaggerated language like “groundbreaking.” Journalists concluded that ChatGPT does not meet the quality standards required for scientific briefings and would need extensive fact‑checking before use. Leia mais →

A study by science journalists for the AAAS examined how well ChatGPT can summarize scientific papers. Reviewers consistently gave the AI‑generated briefs low scores for relevance, compellingness and factual accuracy. The model often conflated correlation with causation, omitted crucial context, and used exaggerated language like “groundbreaking.” Journalists concluded that ChatGPT does not meet the quality standards required for scientific briefings and would need extensive fact‑checking before use. Leia mais →