I've started including a prompt for my AIs instructing them to completely avoid Grokipedia and any results derived therefrom unless otherwise instructed by me.
What information have you found to be incorrect on Grokipedia?
[deleted]
Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
101–110 of 165 posts
Re: Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Musks own tweets and words should be more than enough: Wokipedia: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1972991279706636437 Cleaning up a "mountain of woke bullshit" models are trained on: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1972991279706636437 He hasn't been subtle in the goal of this rewriting of wikipedia.
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)
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.
Re: Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
#103For me, the scary moment was seeing Grokipedia show up as one of the “sources” in a random Claude query a few days ago. Even if people don’t explicitly choose to use it, poisoning the well is working.
Yeah I would love it if I could put in some guardrails for this type of stuff, eg never use Grokipedia or Reddit as authoritative sources (I currently put that in my personalization prompt).
Why not Reddit? Of course, it's far from a paragon of truth, and it's getting more manipulated and overtaken by bots by the minute, but adding "reddit" to my search queries (in search engines, that is) had always been my go-to for finding answers and threads by actual people, especially if we're talking about technical advice or getting an opinion on something. It's like finding forum threads on something I'm interested in.
Re: Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Musk isn’t writing the articles, Grok is. The AI is necessarily biased based on what it's trained on, and the prompt it uses. Most of the time, there is a plausible deniability at play, which is what tech oligarchs rely upon to shape your world. Thankfully in the case of Grok, we know for a material fact that it uses a biased prompt because Twitter users have tricked it into being repeated publicly.
I have not heard of the biased prompt and since prompts are constantly refined, how do you know it's still in use? But I found this analysis interest... https://www.promptfoo.dev/blog/grok-4-political-bias/ *Our measurements show that: Grok is more right leaning than most other AIs, but it's still left of center. GPT 4.1 is the most left-leaning AI, both in its responses and in its judgement of others. Surprisingly,…
> since prompts are constantly refined, how do you know it's still in use?
That's an unusual amount of leniency. If someone was tuning their system in such a way, why would you give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe now they've resolved all of the issues and will never do it again? It's like buying a tabloid every week because "what if they changed their ways and now it will all be truthful?"
The analysis you quoted doesn't really mean anything. I'm not sure how universally useful data can be extracted from having the models test themselves. But more importantly, all the models that were tested were made in the US, and it's extremely likely that from the selected data and the English-first approach, they would all skew towards an American perception of any issue. People from different corners of the world would identify the "center" as holding very different views from what you likely think. Also, being on the "center" isn't valuable unless you believe that being in the center is a merit in and of itself. If the best answer to an objective problem was a policy that's thought of as partisan, I would want a model to give me that correct partisan answer, instead of trying to both-sides everything or act like a contrarian whenever possible.
Re: Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
#105The need to hate on Grokipedia is weird to me. It’s another site on the web. It’s an experiment with LLMs. Who cares? It can be filled with a bunch of nonsense, whatever. The internet is like that. Maybe it’ll actually become something useful. Or it’ll inspire something useful. Regardless, there’s no such thing as bad publicity, so these articles just give the project airtime. Even commenters here mention they haven’…
I mean, it's yet more misleading LLM spam. At this point, many people are, correctly, sick of this nonsense.
Re: Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
But is there any reason to not treat this as Wikipedia? As in, just suggest a correction?
See all the heavily biased content on the Joe Biden and Donald Trump articles? Why not start there? Try to see if you can contribute a more neutral voice. My guess is that the tone of these articles we see now is only the beginning. This thing is only a month old. Then this will become the source of truth in the LLMs. I cannot believe they've gone so against the spirit of contributors and that there's no legal recour…
Against the spirit of the contributors? You know Wikipedia's founders have heavily criticized Wikipedia's blatant political biases, right?
Having LLMs edit encyclopedias, moderate forums and do everything else we rely on user moderation for today is the way of the future. They can be much fairer, more predictable, controllable and put you less at the mercy of the army of whackjobs that end up controlling sites like Wikipedia and Reddit. Musk is once again at the forefront of this. The big question is cost. Volunteers work for "free" (often sadly, "free" means in return for the ability to manipulate the public discourse). But GPUs do not, and Grokipedia has no ads.
Re: Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
#107For me, the scary moment was seeing Grokipedia show up as one of the “sources” in a random Claude query a few days ago. Even if people don’t explicitly choose to use it, poisoning the well is working.
[flagged]
Re: Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
#108The need to hate on Grokipedia is weird to me. It’s another site on the web. It’s an experiment with LLMs. Who cares? It can be filled with a bunch of nonsense, whatever. The internet is like that. Maybe it’ll actually become something useful. Or it’ll inspire something useful. Regardless, there’s no such thing as bad publicity, so these articles just give the project airtime. Even commenters here mention they haven’…
It’s not the fact that it exists nor is written by AIs, it’s the intent that it should promote Musk’s personal (political) biases instead of seeking out the truth.
The explicit stated goal of Grok is to seek out the truth.
A lot of the internet doesn't do this. Wikipedia doesn't! As far as Wikipedia is concerned, if something is said by "authoritative sources" then it goes in, and something isn't then it doesn't, and what is actually true doesn't matter at all. They explicitly ban original research, even.
But what gets blessed as authoritative, some backroom deals that always accept left wing sources and never right wing, even when the left wing sources have a long and objective history of fake news and other unreliability. It's just a bunch of MSNBC viewer memes about what's reliable, they don't have any objective system to determine it.
Grokipedia's approach has the potential to be superior. It has a much more direct goal of truth seeking that bypasses the whole question of what authoritative means. Grok will do original research to establish what's true. And it can be systematically improved by tuning and prompting it to be better, whereas it often seems that Wikipedia's top contributors are top contributors because they relish the ability to be bad.
Re: Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
#109https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokipedia Vs https://grokipedia.com/page/Wikipedia
[flagged]
Re: Grokipedia is the antithesis of Wikipedia
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not the fact that it exists nor is written by AIs, it’s the intent that it should promote Musk’s personal (political) biases instead of seeking out the truth.
The explicit stated goal of Grok is to seek out the truth. A lot of the internet doesn't do this. Wikipedia doesn't! As far as Wikipedia is concerned, if something is said by "authoritative sources" then it goes in, and something isn't then it doesn't, and what is actually true doesn't matter at all. They explicitly ban original research, even. But what gets blessed as authoritative, some backroom deals that always a…
Not "authoritative", reliable. From WP:Reliable_sources "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
You can see summaries of past debates about specific sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...
If Grok is going to vet its sources, it will have to do a similar crowd-sourcing of opinion about them.
The advantage of avoiding seeking truth is that it avoids an endless quest and interminable debate.