Live data from Hacker News

Grokipedia by xAI

grokipedia.com

51–60 of 169 posts

Re: Grokipedia by xAI

#51
post #13

I 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.

I have tried briefly checking two pages about Russo-Ukrainian War. First of all, hilariously Elonopedia starts from 1917-1921 war and goes on about it for multiple paragraphs, then suddenly switches to the 2014 invasion. And no, it's not in the "history" section, it's a main starting section.

Then actual description of the war is much more biased in the Elonopedia. In every case possible the invasion is presented as "both sides are guilty". I wouldn't list the examples, anyone can do it. Too much effort imo.

Then I checked Russo-Georgian War articles, this time at least the century and war was correct in Elonopedia. But again, right from the start it is incredibly biased towards Russia. Elonopedia completely omits the initial attack make bu Russian forces at 01 Aug 2008, skip a week and presents war as if it was initiated by Georgians, following Kremlin propaganda line. Didn't both reading full article.

All in all it is 100% as I have expected reading the news about this supposedly "unbiased" encyclopedia - it's a LLM-generated slop, with no human fact checking (mixing two different century separated wars into one article is telling), and it is essentially a far-right propaganda outlet. It will follow Goebbels rule of mixing 60% or truth with 40% of lies, to prime up unsophisticated readers towards Elon's and rightwing crowd goals.

Re: Grokipedia by xAI

#52
post #37

If 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 inte…

Why build a synthetic data Wikipedia when Wikipedia exists? Except to push some political point like Grokipedia seems to be for.

Re: Grokipedia by xAI

#53
post #22

Amusing to see what Grokipedia thinks of various cities. And no surprise, apartheid apologetics: https://grokipedia.com/page/Apartheid#debunking-prevailing-n... Hilarious factual errors in https://grokipedia.com/page/Green_Line_(CTA)

By "apartheid apologetics" do you mean that it is factually wrong or merely that you dislike the framing? I think there is a huge difference between those two accusations.

>A prevailing narrative depicts apartheid as a system of unremitting total oppression for black South Africans, yet empirical data indicate substantial advancements in black literacy and real wages during the era.

This is a false contradiction. You can oppress people and still pay them higher wages and fight illteracy.

Re: Grokipedia by xAI

#54
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

eh that requires making an account, which I'd prefer not to.

You won’t even do that to correct the apartheid apologetics that you pointed out?

Who decides which fixes will be used? Seems unlikely that you or I could correct anything.

Re: Grokipedia by xAI

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think Wikimedia doesn't profit off of the contributions people make to Wikipedia? >pays for real expenses Only a small percentage of donations do. >instead of whatever vanity project Anytime the topic of Wikimedia donations come up you will see people complaining about their vanity projects too, wishing they could donate towards wikipedia itself.

If you are happy to work for a for-profit corporation w/o any financial compensation then you are more than welcome to do that. Seems a bit irrational to me but that's just my opinion.

[dead]

Re: Grokipedia by xAI

#56
Well, 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.

Post reply on HN