That’s an interesting one, thanks for flagging. None of the things it’s quoting got notes - the C_3C_3 post in the screenshot with the 4.6M views still doesn’t have it. Saad’s post is later than a lot of others, who were writing around when it happened. I wonder if that had something to do with how it was received.
Agree, it's worth looking at how the AI-drafted "collaborative notes" evolve if you want to see that in detail. (vs the AI API-submitted notes, where people are responsible for their bots getting it right. Those are 2 different programs). It's definitely harder to reach consensus on the partisan things, which isn't surprising. This one seemed like a layup; the citations in the Saad note are good, they include the US Atty.
https://sciety.org/articles/activity/10.31234/osf.io/85quw_v2 - there are a couple of papers/preprints that compare the Grok-is-this-true volume with CN volume and find Grok seems to be winning out. Which is once again a centralized form of fact-checking, just with a different referee and displayed in the comments rather than on the post.
The notes did not appear. You can go look at the link I posted. They stayed in No Consensus for days. Last time I checked they were still there.
Grok - once there are reliable sources available for RAG it can get it right.
That’s an interesting one, thanks for flagging. None of the things it’s quoting got notes - the C_3C_3 post in the screenshot with the 4.6M views still doesn’t have it. Saad’s post is later than a lot of others, who were writing around when it happened. I wonder if that had something to do with how it was received.
That is one of 3 that now shows up as "Rated Helpful" for the keyword "Pratt" https://notetracker.socialmedialab.ca/?start=2026-06-02&end=2026-06-10&filterType=all&q=Pratt The other two are on different topics.
Agree, it's worth looking at how the AI-drafted "collaborative notes" evolve if you want to see that in detail. (vs the AI API-submitted notes, where people are responsible for their bots getting it right. Those are 2 different programs). It's definitely harder to reach consensus on the partisan things, which isn't surprising. This one seemed like a layup; the citations in the Saad note are good, they include the US Atty.
https://sciety.org/articles/activity/10.31234/osf.io/85quw_v2 - there are a couple of papers/preprints that compare the Grok-is-this-true volume with CN volume and find Grok seems to be winning out. Which is once again a centralized form of fact-checking, just with a different referee and displayed in the comments rather than on the post.