Have you ever wondered why tech zillionaires set up new IT services, AI search engines, mega databases? The answer is very simple. They want to earn zillions more. When Elon Musk bought Twitter and renamed it to X, he did so to make money. He has announced that he is launching a competitor to wikipedia called Grokopedia (with a slightly bizarre and disturbing text).
Join @xAI and help build Grokipedia, an open source knowledge repository that is vastly better than Wikipedia!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 30, 2025.
This will be available to the public with no limits on use. https://t.co/3CnfrvNIpI
I have no particular allegiance to Wikipedia, it is a uselful resource and has been very useful as a blogger. Whilst it provides the information I require, I will continue to use it. Mr Musk appears to be suggesting that his Grok alternative will be 'vastly better'. This is quite an interesting proposition. Wikipedia is maintained by its users. They manage and correct it. It is free to use. Will an AI with a similar functionality be better as Musk claims? Well the first thing an AI does is trawl the web. So I suspect that it's first stop will be to see what Wikipedia has to say, and then trawl the web to find extra information. So on that basis, he might have a point. If you assume that everything you read on the net is true, it would certainly be so. The problem is that it is only as good as the source information. The people who write wikipedia entries, generally are experts on the given subject and work hard to ensure it is accurate. They are not always right, but when they are wrong, it gets corrected. Musk's alternative will simply trawl the internet and try and use algorythms to effectively 'improve' on the output of wikipedia.
The big question here is how effective will this be? The way AI works, it improves over time. If it gets things wrong and people challenge its output, it will add new rules to its processing algorythms and improve. My view is that, at least in the short term, I would not use it as a primary source and I'd check anything that diverges from information on wikipedia and other sites. By its very nature, Wikipedia has its limitations and these are a strength as much as a weakness. I am not entirely sure that Elon Musk gets this. It is not interactive. It is based on constant peer review. The people who update it are invested in it and generally want to ensure it is correct. My assumption is that Musk's tool will be fully interactive. Let me give an example. Just suppose I want to write a blog about West Coast Rock legend Steve Miller. I will usually start by reading the entire wikipedia page, then the discography. Wikipedia lists its sources, I will then look at a few of these. I will then sketch out a blog and add my own observations and opinions. As I've seen the band a few times in both the UK and USA, I will also source in my recollections. This should ensure that the blog is factually correct, but also contains a unique slant. The fact that I thought Gerald Johnsons bass solo on Macho city, when I saw them at Hammersmith Odeon in 1983, was the best bass solo I've ever seen is an opinion you probably won't read anywhere else.
However. When Mr Musk's new Grokipedia comes into operation and my mate Pete decides to write his own blog on the Steve Miller Band a year later, if we assume for a second that no one else anywhere on the planet has written anything else about the band. and Pete asks Grokipedia about Steve Miller, it will not only see the information I saw on wikipedia. It may well see my blog. It may well tell him that the performance at the Hammersmith Odeon included the best bass solo in the history of the world. It may or may not give him the source of the information. But my blog will be recycled. The only thing that made it better than wikipedia, was itr ead my blog and added my content. Mr Musk, if he has his business plan correct, will make money because his interactive AI wiki product read my blog.
And what do I get for helping him? Nothing. Now just suppose for a second, in two years time, I am to be interviewed on the BBC Local news about the result of the general election in Barnet. The researcher wants to give the reporter a briefing paper on my views. What will they do? Will they read my blogs? Most likely, if Mr Musks AI works, they will simply say "what is the position of Roger Tichborne on issues in the constituency of Hendon". My guess is that they will subscribe for cash to Musks system, so that he can tell them what I think. Now without the content I've written, his service has no value, but with it, it is a valuable resource for the reporter. In short, my efforts are lining Musks pocket.
And then, I am a musician. I write and release songs. I've spent tens of thousands of hours honing my talents, practicing, composing, writing songs. Now AI tools are generating music. A big user of this music is TV and Radio. Actual composers like me are losing work and cash. Let me suggest a scenario. A friend of mine, Laurence Lynch wrote a brilliant play called Burnt Oak, that had two runs at the Leicester Square theatre. Just suppose a Hollywood director wisely decides to make a blockbuster movie based on the script. He needs a theme tune. What does he do? Historically, he'd hire a composer to write a score. Just suppose, he wants to save a few quid and so he asks AI to write him a song about Burnt Oak, which captures the essence of Burnt Oak. The AI goes off and does a trawl. It comes across The False Dots song "The Burnt Oak Boogie", which was a minor hits a couple of years ago. We wrote this to sum up the demographics of the area, using a Ska beat (as Ska was the theme tune of Burnt Oak boot boys in the 1960's and 1970's), we then overlayed an afrobeat style guitar riff over the top, as the area has a large afro-carribean community, so we felt it also reflected the vibes of Burnt Oak now. My lyrics are based on my own experiences of the growing up and going to school in the area. The AI would, presumably, do a trawl of songs with Burnt Oak references as a basis. If the AI is any good, this would be a primary source. It will then come up with a piece of music with a similar vibe and style.
In short, it will plaigerise my song and I won't get a penny. I think AI is an amazing concept. It can spot cancers, develop drugs, cut the time new medicines take to come to market, help people like me write blogs, clean up the sound on ancient cassettes, making them suitable for release (a massive boon for people like me with old music featuring dead friends). However, I have a massive objection to the fact that the only financial beneficiaries will be tech billionaires. Content creators of source material should get a BIG slice of the profit. Now in my case, if an AI trawls my blog and comes up with an answer about a hyper local Barnet issue for a bloke in Finchley, I don't expect a million pounds. But Mr Musk has earned a tangible amount of money, if his system is used. Lets assume he earns 1/1,000 of a penny every time his apps use someone elses work. I would contend that a proportion, Lets say 75% should go to the people who actually answered the query with the source data. I would suggest that creators have accounts set up, which they can claim. When there is more than £30 in the account, they can claim it. Cash unclaimed after two years, should be donated to educational charities, not linked to the platform owners.
Now, for me personally, given my blog stats, I'd estimate, I'd earn between £20-£100 per year. It wouldn't change my life but may cover the cost of being connected to the internet for a month or two. For Mr Musk. If he's going to earn a billion dollars from his new platform, but only owns a quarter of that, it won't ruin his life or pauperise him. What might make a massive difference though, would be if the unclaimed money helping to address the issues of poor education and digital exclusion.
I've never written a blog to make money. It was never part of the equation, however I do not see why the richest man in the world should make even more from my efforts, whilst I don't get a penny. There are plenty of creators who do it far better than I do and who should get proper renumeration. When people say "Grok answered a question" it didn't. Someone who has had no recognition has had their work plaigerised. Historically Google gave links, so you'd see who did teh work. Now you get an 'AI Summary' and no one knows. If you've ever wondered why the likes of Musk try and snuggle up to the likes of Donald Trump, the reason is pretty obvious. They want to ensure they keep all the csh for themselves.
I suppose I had to end this blog with this song, don't I?
No comments:
Post a Comment