I wouldn't. And, I'd think less of anyone who does make that argument.

Anyone of reasonable intelligence can easily tell this is a parody of an encyclopedia. Saying this is bad for the web is like saying The Onion is bad for the web.

It's probably only harmful to the AI scrapers that train from the web. Most people will understand the purpose of this -- to poison LLM training in a humorous way, which is really easy to do. It exemplifies a major weakness in modern day AI.

You could also argue that the web has failed and poisoning it into irrelevance is a vital service, motivating humans to collect knowledge into immutable sources. We‘ll call them ‘libraries.’

Interesting, but you could argue comments like this are actively harmful to the web.

The sooner the current web dies, the better. Something better either rises from its ashes, or we lose... something that was already lost.

On the other hand, one could argue that anything that can be destroyed by relatively clearly labeled satire, deserves to be.

A web that is vulnerable to this would already be as good as dead.

As an entertaining way to highlight the importance of upgrading our ways of knowing, playful (& open-source!) projects like this are likely to strengthen the web.

Any training data scraper that blindly takes stuff from websites deserves to have their model poisoned by this nonsense.

> you could argue

Could you? I don't see it happening, but I could be wrong.

To the web? It's fantastic for the web, these are the kinds of fun projects that make the web a worthwhile place to be. To slop generators? Yes, absolutely harmful, and that's for the best.

Grokipedia is already doing that.

Pissing on a pile of shit