> his bias results in underrepresentation of Global South perspectives, limited access individuals, and women, among others. And grok is addressing this... how

> his bias results in underrepresentation of Global South perspectives, limited access individuals, and women, among others. And grok is addressing this... how, precisely? I looked up your cite, this is the twitter thingy: > GROKIPEDIA IS ALREADY MORE ACCURATE THAN WIKIPEDIA AND IT SHOWS > Grokipedia just proved why it is rewriting how knowledge works online. Look at how it covers acupuncture compared to Wikipedia. > Grokipedia explains the practice as an ancient Chinese medical system over two thousand years old, describing how it works, what practitioners believe, and what science says about its results. > Wikipedia opens by calling it pseudoscience and quackery before even defining it. > One informs you, the other attacks. > Grokipedia delivers balanced facts while Wikipedia delivers bias. Acupuncture related techniques do (I assume) go back 2000 years. They're also pseudoscience with no real evidence behind them. Both things can be true.