Some people actually studied this already, and used embeddings to determine the differences between Grokipedia and Wikipedia: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.09685 h

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.