4 ms·

Do you have any evidence that Grokipedia is actually biased? Most articles are merely their Wikipedia counterpart filtered through the Grok LLM.

by mbirth 10mo ago

fragmede 10mo ago
The bit with mechahitler wasn't enough to convince you that the operators of the system are intentionally guiding it in a certain direction?
rtkwe 10mo ago
Musks own tweets and words should be more than enough: Wokipedia: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1972991279706636437 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1972991279706636437 Cleaning up a "mountain of woke bullshit" models are trained on: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1972991279706636437 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1972991279706636437 He hasn't been subtle in the goal of this rewriting of wikipedia.
- atonse 10mo ago
  I think the parent was asking you for evidence of articles with bias, though. Not evidence of Musk making fun of Wikipedia. I’m also curious to see any egregious violations where grok also dug its heels in a biased way when presented with an edit/correction with credible evidence. I’d love to see some evidence of it. (Not in a sarcastic way, I’m genuinely asking)
  - croon 10mo ago
    Its' entire (stated) raison d'etre is that wikipedia is biased and wrong, so let's swap the question and instead ask for evidence of wikipedia sticking to wrong edits. If not, then grokipedia must exist for some other reason. Edit: Of course edit spamming/concerted efforts can affect wikipedia, but I'd rather that possibility than the entire thing be edit controlled by a person with an endless string of scrupulous behaviour.
    - mbirth 10mo ago
      Do you really believe, Elon is watching over all Grokipedia articles and edits them as he pleases? And, to engage in your whataboutism, it’s not that Wikipedia is inherently publishing wrong facts. It’s about their editors omitting inconvenient facts about their favourite political people. Here’s a paper about how the (German) articles of ruling party members are usually shorter than those of the opposing parties. Cross-checked against the same articles in other languages (which those German editors wouldn’t edit) and all. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Coverage-bias-on-Wikipedia-Evidence-from-of-German-Kerkhof/b9788b4deee9df60e16660a805352fb33f9ea1a0 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Coverage-bias-on-Wikip...
      - smallmancontrov 10mo ago
        It's 2025, not 2015. Complaints about lies of omission must be contrasted with how remarkably comfortable Elon and Trump and the right wing in general have become with lies of commission.
      - croon 10mo ago
        No. But do I believe he directs engineers to lobotomise grok everytime it frames reality in a way he dislikes? Absolutely. And do I believe that grok is used to output grokipedia? Also yes.
  - rtkwe 10mo ago
    It favors things like "Vaccine Skepticism", climate change, and some more esoteric topics like Gamergate. It's been well covered and when the owner says "we're going to make it biased so our AIs trained on it are less 'woke'" I'm willing to accept they're doing the bad thing they say they're doing. https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/808514/grokipedia-wikipedia-comparison https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/808514/g...
notsure2 10mo ago
Grok says Elon is fitter than LeBron James. It's billed as an intelligence but that belies the hidden editorial layer, secretly directing it's output. Anyone trusting this is deeply misguided.
stingraycharles 10mo ago
Some people actually studied this already, and used embeddings to determine the differences between Grokipedia and Wikipedia: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.09685 https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.09685 Some things I found interesting: * Grokipedia uses Twitter a lot more as authoritative evidence than Wikipedia * Grokipedia uses Grok’s own responses to user questions as authoritative sources, eg after a user asks “Can you dig up some dirt about $politician” and Grok responds, this is then used as source in Grokipedia, which may or may not be hallucinated * the articles on politicians and Wikipedia’s curated list of “controversial topics” differ the most. they cite some examples from the “masculinity” article. It’s a pretty interesting starting point imho. Let’s just say that the methodology of Grokipedia is at the very least highly questionable.

Do you have any evidence that Grokipedia is actually biased? Most articles are merely their Wikipedia counterpart filtered through the Grok LLM.

by mbirth 10mo ago

Do you have any evidence that Grokipedia is actually biased? Most articles are merely their Wikipedia counterpart filtered through the Grok LLM.

fragmede 10mo ago

The bit with mechahitler wasn't enough to convince you that the operators of the system are intentionally guiding it in a certain direction?

rtkwe 10mo ago

Musks own tweets and words should be more than enough: Wokipedia: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1972991279706636437 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1972991279706636437 Cleaning up a "mountain of woke bullshit" models are trained on: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1972991279706636437 https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1972991279706636437 He hasn't been subtle in the goal of this rewriting of wikipedia.

atonse 10mo ago
I think the parent was asking you for evidence of articles with bias, though. Not evidence of Musk making fun of Wikipedia. I’m also curious to see any egregious violations where grok also dug its heels in a biased way when presented with an edit/correction with credible evidence. I’d love to see some evidence of it. (Not in a sarcastic way, I’m genuinely asking)
- croon 10mo ago
  Its' entire (stated) raison d'etre is that wikipedia is biased and wrong, so let's swap the question and instead ask for evidence of wikipedia sticking to wrong edits. If not, then grokipedia must exist for some other reason. Edit: Of course edit spamming/concerted efforts can affect wikipedia, but I'd rather that possibility than the entire thing be edit controlled by a person with an endless string of scrupulous behaviour.
  - mbirth 10mo ago
    Do you really believe, Elon is watching over all Grokipedia articles and edits them as he pleases? And, to engage in your whataboutism, it’s not that Wikipedia is inherently publishing wrong facts. It’s about their editors omitting inconvenient facts about their favourite political people. Here’s a paper about how the (German) articles of ruling party members are usually shorter than those of the opposing parties. Cross-checked against the same articles in other languages (which those German editors wouldn’t edit) and all. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Coverage-bias-on-Wikipedia-Evidence-from-of-German-Kerkhof/b9788b4deee9df60e16660a805352fb33f9ea1a0 https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Coverage-bias-on-Wikip...
    - smallmancontrov 10mo ago
      It's 2025, not 2015. Complaints about lies of omission must be contrasted with how remarkably comfortable Elon and Trump and the right wing in general have become with lies of commission.
    - croon 10mo ago
      No. But do I believe he directs engineers to lobotomise grok everytime it frames reality in a way he dislikes? Absolutely. And do I believe that grok is used to output grokipedia? Also yes.
- rtkwe 10mo ago
  It favors things like "Vaccine Skepticism", climate change, and some more esoteric topics like Gamergate. It's been well covered and when the owner says "we're going to make it biased so our AIs trained on it are less 'woke'" I'm willing to accept they're doing the bad thing they say they're doing. https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/808514/grokipedia-wikipedia-comparison https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/808514/g...

notsure2 10mo ago

Grok says Elon is fitter than LeBron James. It's billed as an intelligence but that belies the hidden editorial layer, secretly directing it's output. Anyone trusting this is deeply misguided.

stingraycharles 10mo ago

Some people actually studied this already, and used embeddings to determine the differences between Grokipedia and Wikipedia: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.09685 https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.09685 Some things I found interesting: * Grokipedia uses Twitter a lot more as authoritative evidence than Wikipedia * Grokipedia uses Grok’s own responses to user questions as authoritative sources, eg after a user asks “Can you dig up some dirt about $politician” and Grok responds, this is then used as source in Grokipedia, which may or may not be hallucinated * the articles on politicians and Wikipedia’s curated list of “controversial topics” differ the most. they cite some examples from the “masculinity” article. It’s a pretty interesting starting point imho. Let’s just say that the methodology of Grokipedia is at the very least highly questionable.