39 ms·
Grokipedia by xAI
- slater 11mo ago“sorry, you have been blocked”
- thsName 11mo agoI got blocked too. No ideas other than a faulty Cloudflare setup.
- MrCoffee7 11mo agosame error here - they probably crashed because of inadequate server capacity
- rolph 11mo agoi recommend urban dictionary as replacement: https://www.urbandictionary.com/ https://www.urbandictionary.com/
- cozzyd 11mo agoBased on a cursory glance at both, Urban Dictionary is more accurate.
- tastyface 11mo ago[flagged]
- techblueberry 11mo agoWhat is the point of Grokipedia. It's an interesting experiment I guess (Really is it just a bunch of pre-rendered prompts I could ask Grok instead?), curious how much of wikipedia is in the training set. I would think if you wanted an alternate encyclopedia you would want something that AI can train against, so Grok itself can't probably bet too much value out of it. ( I guess people can choose their truth now? I suppose the US Government could require grokipedia to be chosen over wikipedia for use in schools? I mean I guess I'll check it out for the lols but I don't see myself actually using it.
- newer_vienna 11mo agohttps://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/08/uberfact-ultimate-social-verifier/ https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/08/uberfact-ul... would be an answer form an old school blogger
- techblueberry 11mo agoI think everyone wants pluralism unless they're in charge, in which case they want a world where only the people who agree with them have power. I also note that - in theory, the purpose of wikipedia is to serve it's users. If I want to know, the example outlined in the blog post, where was George W. Bush born, I can find the answer in Wikipedia. Certainly there are places where it optimizes for it's editors but for the most part, the vastness of a website with 7 million articles implies it is for the consumers. Uberpedia seems much more intended for the editors. I don't want to consume information, I just want to feel warm and fuzzy knowing that there are people who agree with me. But Grokipedia doesn't sound like Curtis is describing at all, he explicitly calls out that forks (like conservipedia) don't solve these "issues".
- dingnuts 11mo ago[flagged]
- tim333 11mo ago>... Musk announced xAI was building a new AI-generated online encyclopedia, to be called Grokipedia, in the midst of his criticisms of Wikipedia's ideological biases. The project was suggested and named by White House AI and crypto czar David O. Sacks at the All-In podcast conference earlier that month. According to Musk's announcement, it would be an AI-powered knowledge base designed to rival Wikipedia by addressing its perceived biases, errors, and ideological slants. (source Wikipedia)
- hagbard_c 11mo agoLet the battle... commence. Wikipedia is a collaborative, multilingual online encyclopedia consisting of freely editable articles written and maintained primarily by volunteers worldwide, utilizing wiki software to enable open contributions under free content licenses. Launched on January 15, 2001, by American entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger as a wiki-based complement to the slower-paced expert-reviewed Nupedia project, it rapidly expanded due to its accessible editing model.[1][2] Since 2003, Wikipedia has been hosted and supported by the Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization that provides technical infrastructure and promotes free knowledge dissemination.[3] As of October 2025, Wikipedia encompasses over 65 million articles across 357 language editions, making it one of the largest reference works ever compiled, with the English edition alone surpassing 7 million entries.[4] Renowned for its unprecedented scale, accessibility, and role in democratizing information, Wikipedia has nonetheless encountered persistent criticisms regarding factual reliability, susceptibility to vandalism and hoaxes, and systemic ideological biases—particularly a left-leaning slant in coverage of political figures and topics, as evidenced by computational analyses associating right-of-center entities with more negative sentiment and acknowledged by co-founder Sanger who has described the platform as captured by ideologically driven editors. (source Grokipedia) https://grokipedia.com/page/Wikipedia https://grokipedia.com/page/Wikipedia
- newer_vienna 11mo agoGetting the cloudflare error as well. Nevertheless this reminds me of an old Curtis Yarvin post on his proposal for a meta-wikipedia. "Uberfact". He's not everyone's cup of tea but I quite enjoy this article of his - https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/08/uberfact-ultimate-social-verifier/ https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/08/uberfact-ul...
- dingnuts 11mo ago[flagged]
- tastyface 11mo agoAnother thing philosopher genius and right-wing darling Curtis Yarvin recently said: "We have only one problem. The problem is: our billionaires are n—ers. They may be rich. But they're n—er rich. The nature and function of their wealth is profoundly negrous. You can probably name exceptions. I can too. But in every way, the exceptions prove the rule" https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:sefgphqp2xqwh2hawaixykwz/post/3lv7lipobrs2a https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:sefgphqp2xqwh2hawaixykwz/po...
- fennec-posix 11mo agoI still don't understand what he meant by that statement, none the less, floors me each time I read it. I don't think it's for my understanding... I'm not his audience.
- wredcoll 11mo agoIt seems intellectually vacuous. But I guess it's edgy and makes some people feel goood?
- UncleMeat 11mo agoYarvin is a fascist who would prefer if I was shot in the head. "Not everyone's cup of tea" is not exactly how I'd describe it.
- 11mo ago
- thsName 11mo agoI suggest that anyone interested compare the content of Wikipedia and Grokpedia articles on topics that interest them, as well as the differences in sources between these two projects. Of course, only if someone finds this research interesting.
- techblueberry 11mo agoI’m doing so, and it’s not that different? Grok gets to the point a bit more, and has a bit more of a bent, but say the Wikipedia page on Communism doesn’t bury the lede on the negatives of communism. Curious if this will end up pointing out that in the end Wikipedia isn’t that bad. Grok’s pages on the prosecutions of Trump are definetly biased. I’m probably not the core audience for this though. I use Wikipedia as a reference, not to tell me what to think.
- slater 11mo agoYeah nah, just compare the Grokipedia entries for the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. I don't think one could get any more weasel-worded if they tried. An utter waste of everyone's time, money, effort, and manpower.
- techblueberry 11mo agoThis is a nice touch: “ In recent decades, the party has prioritized identity-based equity policies, climate interventions, and expansive regulatory frameworks, yet empirical critiques highlight correlations between its governance in major cities and elevated crime rates, homelessness persistence, and educational stagnation amid softened enforcement and redistribution efforts.[7][8]” Which doesn’t link to anything supporting the negative assertions. No search results for Republicans Party, which I assume means it said something Musk didn’t like.
- slater 11mo agoNot so fast! Heard u liked utterly whitewashed nonsense? https://grokipedia.com/page/Republican_Party_(United_States) https://grokipedia.com/page/Republican_Party_(United_States)
- sergiotapia 11mo agovery cool, this is wonderful news. I hope it continue to grow and becomes a sort of "Multivac" of sorts free of corruption seen on wikipedia.
- CSMastermind 11mo agoSeems kind of spase still? I tried looking up Little house on the parire and it turned up the TV show but not the book series. Reflections on Trusting Trust is mentioned in Ken Thompson's page but when I searched for it he wasn't part of the results.
- measurablefunc 11mo agoIt's yet another scam/beta product. He's testing the waters to see if it can be turned into a commercial project.
- verdverm 11mo agoI'm not sure it isn't primarily to further the post-truth world where popularity trumps facts Same story for Twitter If he gets a $1T pay package, cost centers for the larger goal are rounding errors
- systemstops 11mo agoIt will get better. This is only version 0.1.
- qingcharles 11mo agoSo will Wikipedia.
- systemstops 11mo agoI hope so, but that would require of rolling back some changes they made that led to ideological biases, which would be fought tooth and nail.
- wredcoll 11mo agoHaving to give credence to incorrect theories and lies would not, in fact, be an improvement.
- bigyabai 11mo agoglances at iOS Are you certain that iterative versioning indicates any real qualitative progress?
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- cozzyd 11mo agoAmusing to see what Grokipedia thinks of various cities. And no surprise, apartheid apologetics: https://grokipedia.com/page/Apartheid#debunking-prevailing-narratives-and-comparative-contexts https://grokipedia.com/page/Apartheid#debunking-prevailing-n... Hilarious factual errors in https://grokipedia.com/page/Green_Line_(CTA) https://grokipedia.com/page/Green_Line_(CTA)
- sergiotapia 11mo agoYou can select text, and send factual errors to be fixed. If you found something wrong in that article you should submit some fixes.
- cozzyd 11mo agoeh that requires making an account, which I'd prefer not to.
- andsoitis 11mo agoYou won’t even do that to correct the apartheid apologetics that you pointed out?
- fragmede 11mo ago[flagged]
- rsynnott 11mo agoI mean, given who runs it, one would assume the apartheid apologetics are by design. I can think of few things more pointless than trying to correct Musk’s safe space.
- croes 11mo agoWho decides which fixes will be used? Seems unlikely that you or I could correct anything.
- LexiMax 11mo ago
- lewismenelaws 11mo agoLooking up the Republican Party "controversies" vs the Democratic Party "controversies" should let you know exactly what this projects intentions are. That being said, my biggest issue with it is how Grok is writing everything. It's like it is trying REALLY hard to be neutral but it's conversational training slips up and starts "spicing" things up a little. For example on Elon's article: "...at age 12 in 1983, developing a space-themed video game called Blastar, which he sold to PC and Office Technology magazine for approximately $500. *This early entrepreneurial act foreshadowed Musk's later pursuits in technology and business*." Sentences like that are designed to subtly bring emotion to certain topics.
- dabinat 11mo agoI guess this poses an interesting question: if Wikipedia was being created today, would it be a human- edited encyclopedia or would they just resort to AI because it’s easier? It makes me wonder if people will shy away from hard problems and just take the easy path, resulting in a shallower and less useful product to society.
- archagon 11mo agoWithout Wikipedia's corpus, today's AI might not even be possible.
- hagbard_c 11mo agoOh yes it would be possible. It would probably be less biased as well. Don't forget that these models are trained on libraries of congress worth of books as well as things like Wikipedia. Given that Wikipedia - like any encyclopedia - does not (or should not, at least) contain original research but only refers to existing sources and given that the companies which train these models have their ways to access those sources - sometimes illegally but still - all Wikipedia adds to the mix is a biased interpretation of the original research.
- Gigachad 11mo agoI have to wonder, obviously the grok version exists just to push Elons politics and take control over the “truth”. But it seems like an LLM could take over. Considering Wikipedia is not meant to contain any original facts, just a collection of references to external information.
- nake13 11mo agoIf you’ve tried OpenAI’s Deep Research or similar tools, you’ll know they pull far more info than Wikipedia. But if you’re an expert, you’ll quickly spot errors since the breadth is huge but the depth and accuracy are only so-so. For non-experts just exploring new topics, it’s still perfectly useful. Grokipedia probably uses a similar search, verify, summarize workflow, so it naturally inherits mistakes from the internet, which isn’t really an LLM problem. Grok is just the first to make it public, and other AI companies could easily build their own synthetic data Wikipedias, and some probably already have.
- johneth 11mo agoWhy build a synthetic data Wikipedia when Wikipedia exists? Except to push some political point like Grokipedia seems to be for.
- nake13 11mo agoWikipedia’s coverage looks broad, but it still can’t keep up with how fast knowledge grows. And the gaps are even more severe in non-English versions of Wikipedia.
- abhishekbasu 11mo agoGrokipedia at home: https://github.com/abhishekbasu/localwiki https://github.com/abhishekbasu/localwiki
- mellosouls 11mo agoI tried it briefly. Its an ok initial start with significant flaws - while it counters Wikipedia's (editorial demographic) bias on cultural topics it seems to do so by assuming the style of a bland, unanalytical reporter, accepting the self-framing of the subject and relaying it at turgid length. An example: the classical liberal writer Douglas Murray is one of the many targets on Wikipedia of ludicrous "far right" style categorizations; nevertheless its correct to attempt to draw out his own alignments and biases especially where he writes provocatively in areas with cultural tensions. Grokipedia seems to smooth over those tensions almost in denial while Wikipedia stirs them up via exaggeration. I don't think either are helpful or honest. https://grokipedia.com/page/Douglas_Murray_(author) https://grokipedia.com/page/Douglas_Murray_(author) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Murray_(author) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Murray_(author)
- rsynnott 11mo agoI feel like ‘Wikipedia for stupid people’ is already quite a crowded market, tbh.
- yawboakye 11mo agopatiently waiting for grokipedia’s article on grokipedia. it seems to not be available at the moment. i’m interested from a philosophical perspective: on the completeness of self-description. for example, here’s wikipedia on wikipedia[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
- MadDemon 11mo agoThere is already a Wikipedia article about Grokipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokipedia
- thiht 11mo agoThanks for sharing, added to my blocklist!
- hagbard_c 11mo agoMay I ask why you directly added it to your blocklist? I can see several potential reasons people block sites and I wonder which is the leading one for you.
- thiht 11mo agoI don’t need to access the far right echo chamber of a fucking nazi billionaire. MAGA are liars and they believe truth is "left-biased". To them "unbiased" means "fits how I want the world to be". There’s absolutely no objectivity to expect from Grok, Grokipedia, Twitter. It’s the same shit as Conservapedia. That they attack Wikipedia because it’s somehow fake is proof enough that Grokipedia is gonna become a fascist cesspool.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- hagbard_c 11mo agoYou're clearly the target market for Wikipedia and as such have nothing to gain from any attempts to open your mind for a different view. Just... go easy on all those labels you spew out so easily. It makes it hard to take anything you say seriously, as it stands now those labels seem more like a mirror.
- thiht 11mo agoNone of these labels are false. I won’t shy away from calling a spade a spade, or a nazi a nazi. I’m tired of far right extremists trying to control the narrative while saying the most hateful shit and lying all the time. If you want to attack someone’s speech, attack MAGA. They’re the party of flat earth and antivax and "paracetamol causes autism" and "slavery was not that bad". And stop trying to frame this as just open mindedness, this is not the case. MAGA and far right billionaires are not the open minded ones.
- taccal 11mo ago[flagged]
- meijer 11mo agoWell, they use AI to create "content". So I guess it's fair to use AI to read it. This is what Claude says about "Grokipedia"'s article about the Gaza war, compared to the original: Major Differences Between Wikipedia and Grokipedia's Gaza War Articles 1. Framing and Perspective Wikipedia: Presents the conflict with multiple perspectives, acknowledging disputed narratives. Uses neutral language like "armed conflict" and presents genocide allegations as claims made by "many human rights organizations and scholars." Grokipedia: Frames the conflict almost entirely from an Israeli perspective. Hamas is consistently portrayed as the aggressor and sole source of civilian suffering, with Israeli actions defended as necessary self-defense. 2. Casualty Figures and Reporting Wikipedia: Reports over 79,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza as reported figures, noting they come from the Gaza Health Ministry but presenting them as the available data. Grokipedia: Systematically questions and undermines Palestinian casualty figures, dedicating entire sections to "Verification Challenges and Inflated Figures" and "Combatants Versus Civilians." It emphasizes that figures are "Hamas-administered" and suggests deliberate fabrication, claiming the ministry has "incentives for propagandistic reporting." 3. Treatment of Genocide Allegations Wikipedia: States that "many human rights organizations and scholars of genocide studies and international law, including an independent UN commission, say that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, though some dispute this". Grokipedia: Dismisses genocide allegations as part of "double standards in scrutiny" and frames them as politically motivated attacks on Israel's legitimate self-defense. The word "genocide" appears primarily in sections criticizing those who make such claims. 4. Hamas's Responsibility for Civilian Harm Wikipedia: Mentions Hamas's use of civilian infrastructure but doesn't make it the primary explanation for Palestinian casualties. Grokipedia: Contains extensive sections titled "Impact of Hamas Tactics on Civilian Suffering" arguing that Hamas's embedding of military assets in civilian areas is the primary cause of Palestinian civilian deaths, stating "Hamas's operational choices to a disproportionate share of Palestinian suffering, independent of Israeli response intensity." 5. Aid and Humanitarian Crisis Wikipedia: Describes Israel's blockade cutting off necessities and causing famine, with Israel's actions as a key factor. Grokipedia: Features a section on "Aid Distribution Failures and Diversion by Hamas," emphasizing that "Hamas diverts up to 25% of incoming aid supplies" and that aid failures stem primarily from Hamas's control and diversion rather than Israeli restrictions. 6. Language and Terminology Wikipedia: Uses terms like "Israeli invasion," "Israeli offensive," and "Israeli strikes" in a descriptive manner. Grokipedia: Uses emotionally charged language like Hamas's "systematic atrocities," "barbarism," and describes October 7 as involving "mass killings, sexual violence, and arson" while Israeli actions are described as "targeted operations," "precision strikes," and "necessary self-defense." 7. International Law and War Crimes Wikipedia: Notes that "experts and human rights organizations have stated that Israel and Hamas have committed war crimes", treating both sides' alleged violations seriously. Grokipedia: Has separate sections for "Hamas Violations" and "Israeli Actions Under International Law," with the Hamas section focusing on terrorism and war crimes, while the Israeli section emphasizes legal justification, proportionality, and compliance efforts. It includes a section on "Investigations and Double Standards in Scrutiny" arguing Israel faces biased treatment. 8. Historical Context Wikipedia: Provides context about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the occupation, and blockade as contributing factors. Grokipedia: Emphasizes Hamas's ideology, its 1988 charter calling for Israel's destruction, and its "rejectionism" as the primary context, with a section on "Hamas's October 7, 2023 Attack" prominently featuring "Atrocities and Hostage Abductions" with graphic details. 9. Verification and Sources Wikipedia: Generally presents available information with citations, acknowledging when sources are disputed. Grokipedia: Systematically questions sources that reflect negatively on Israel (especially UN and Gaza Health Ministry data) while presenting Israeli military assessments as reliable. It includes phrases like "Hamas-controlled" and "unverified" repeatedly when discussing Palestinian sources. 10. Overall Narrative Wikipedia: Attempts to present the conflict as complex with legitimate grievances and wrongdoing on multiple sides. Grokipedia: Presents a clear narrative of Israeli victimhood and justified response to Hamas terrorism, with Palestinian civilian suffering primarily attributed to Hamas's tactics rather than Israeli military operations. Conclusion The Grokipedia article reads as an explicitly pro-Israel advocacy piece rather than an encyclopedia article. It systematically frames Israeli actions in the most favorable light while questioning, undermining, or recontextualizing information that might reflect negatively on Israel. This represents a fundamental departure from Wikipedia's attempt at neutral point of view, confirming the concerns about Grokipedia presenting topics aligned with Elon Musk's political positions.
- Meekro 11mo ago[flagged]
- 1997MarsRover 11mo ago[flagged]
- HK-NC 11mo agoIt says that science has concluded that race is a social construct, but to my knowledge african people have no neanderthal DNA, and some people in africa have "ghost DNA" of an unknown hominid, if I remember an old new scientist article correctly. How is this purely social?
- ben_w 11mo agoTo oversimplify somewhat, the reason geneticists describe "race" as a social construct is that classifying everyone into a handful of buckets created by Victorians and based on people's dermal melanin density, fails to cut reality at its joints. For a more detailed response: https://bioanth.org/about/aaba-statement-on-race-racism/ https://bioanth.org/about/aaba-statement-on-race-racism/ If you take various different African populations, you'll find they're genetically diverse, not one single group, and the differences within the racial categories are large compared to the differences between the racial categories. To put it another way: dividing people up by skin colour being "black" or "white" is about as useful as doing so by their hair colour being "blonde" or "ginger" — it's not that this isn't part of the world, it is, it's just that the categorisation is functionally useless.
- HK-NC 11mo agoI didn't mention skin tone.
- ben_w 11mo agoAm I to understand that you are unaware that "race" is "skin tone" in much of the Anglosphere? This specific mapping, and the uselessness of the categories, is the core of why "race" is seen as a social construct. The categorical divisions that translate as "race" are different in other parts of the world, and that they are so varied demonstrates the same point: it's a socially defined categorisation system. These other divisions too are necessarily superficial, though with a language barrier as well as a cultural barrier I cannot compare their usage to the racial categories I grew up with.
- srid 11mo agoSee also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45424533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45424533 Does anyone know why replies are disabled in that other submission?
- tim333 11mo agoComparing the Elon Musk articles between Grokipedia and Wikipedia, the first factual difference is with Tesla: >..Musk founded SpaceX in 2002 as CEO and chief engineer, Tesla in 2003 ... (grok) >Musk joined the automaker Tesla as an early investor in 2004 and became its CEO ... (wikipedia) I think Wikipedia is more accurate on that one.
- Meekro 11mo agoYou're right, that's definitely a mistake. Though to be fair, the same article gets it right if you scroll down to the Tesla section. The article on Tesla also gets it right.
- stonecharioteer 11mo agoNo entry on tianmen square either.
- hagbard_c 11mo agoSpell it correctly and you'll find it: https://grokipedia.com/page/Tiananmen_Square https://grokipedia.com/page/Tiananmen_Square
- helf 11mo ago[dead]
- josefritzishere 11mo agoDoes the world need a Mecha-Hitler version of Wikipedia?
- qustrolabe 11mo agothis concept has huge potential when done slowly with caution, but I bet this one ends up too politically biased one day, so far seems like the most blatant copy paste of wikipedia texts
- thsName 11mo ago[dead]
- poopiokaka 11mo ago[dead]
- IAmGraydon 11mo agoIt’s sad to see that there’s an army of engineers willing to help a literal insane person attempt to warp reality with a massive propaganda machine for a salary.
- mudkipdev 11mo agoSilly glitch on the page: https://grokipedia.com/page/Sri_Lanka https://grokipedia.com/page/Sri_Lanka
- benrutter 11mo agoPutting aside my political concerns about Elon Musk starting an encyclopedia, I thought I'd look up the indie rock band Beat Happening as a tester. My first thoughts were that it was very impressive. There's a confused garbled image link (that appears as text) but otherwise it looks convincing: > Beat Happening was an American indie pop band formed in Olympia, Washington, in 1982 by vocalist and guitarist Calvin Johnson, guitarist Heather Lewis, and drummer Bret Lunsford. Then I though, hey let's see what wikipedia says, here it is: > Beat Happening was an American indie pop band formed in Olympia, Washington in 1982. Calvin Johnson, Heather Lewis, and Bret Lunsford were the band's continual members. I came away less impressed- grokipedia's opening paragraph reads to me like a very minor rephrase. I assume wikipedia is in the training data here and being spat back out? In fact going back to the garbled image link: >  Even this seems to be a reference to the wilipedia image at the top of the article titled: > File:Beat Happening (1988 Rough Trade publicity photo).jpg What a collosal waste of resources? Is anyone under the impression that this kind of "rephrased and lesss acurate wikipedia" is going to be helpful?
- Maken 11mo agoThe point is rewriting the articles that matter to Musk. Nobody cares about the rest of the articles, they are there just to justify Grokipedia being an encyclopedia at all.
- dev2roofer 11mo agoKinda funny how Grokipedia looks like an encyclopedia but clearly talks like an LLM. Lots of confidence, not so much evidence. It’s not that it’s trying to lie — it’s just how these models work. They’re great at making language sound right, not necessarily be right. Feels more like a mirror of what the internet “thinks” than an actual source of truth. If they framed it that way — more experiment, less Wikipedia — I think people would take it a lot better.
- superkuh 11mo agoI remember when I was a kid I childishly edited the Bible so that all occurances of 'god' or 'lord' and the like were replaced with my nickname. I then uploaded these altered copies all over the 1990s internet. This seems like pretty much the same energy.