Elon to launch Grokipedia, an AI Wikipedia competitor, in two weeks

This is a nothing burger. This is just one of a long list of announcements made that likely won't go anywhere major.

Sounds like it'll be just wikipedia clone that just sites 4chan and Fox News. No one who is a perpetually online MAGA or crypto bro is gonna give this any thought. I wouldn't be surprised he just said this after another katamine bender.
 
Bruce Willis Wtf GIF
 
Why not. Competition is good.

There should be at least 4 or 5 more encyclopedias made by different people. Wikipedia being the only one for that long has shown its limits long ago.
 
Griffon said:
Why not. Competition is good.

There should be at least 4 or 5 more encyclopedias made by different people. Wikipedia being the only one for that long has shown its limits long ago.
Click to expand...
This is being made by AI. It took 1000's of people decades to make the current wikipedia. Fighting, fact checking, researching, fighting some more. It has flaws but it is at least researched. An AI is going to make a massive mess - imagine this -
www.joneswalker.com

Court Slams Lawyers for AI-Generated Fake Citations

A federal judge in Colorado has issued a scathing order that should serve as a wake-up call for attorneys who use frontier generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) models in legal research. On…
www.joneswalker.com www.joneswalker.com
- but applied to all human knowledge.
I am in for the comedy though.
 
Last edited:
RavageX said:
I have to agree. More people are just finding shit where they want to see it.

Instead of looking at the core issue, it's just woke this, left that, right that. Lots of complaining on the internet, turning it into memes instead of doing anything, or trying to do anything about the issues.
Click to expand...
The 'doing anything' requires bringing back fact checkers, historians, and moderation (so that lies do not spread like wildfire). But too many people on the internet today see any form of moderation as trampling on free speech. So we're stuck where we are until people finally agree that a standardized level of rules and regulations should be a common thing across 99.9% of sites that don't end in "chan".
 
AI is still too stupid and limited to be trusted with curating human knowledge and that's before having to trust the lying, egotistical billionaire behind it.
 
If the end product is good, I'm all for it. Problem is AI recaps can be bad. Google's is often wrong, especially if you search pro athletes where it can get messed up scraping pages because those articles it links to talk about his pro athlete father or brother, so the AI is getting mixed up who is who.

Or you see stupid trolling edits. Check out MMA fights and you'll often get someone editing the page saying something stupid like XXX got knocked out or make a joke, but the fight is still going on. Then a minute later, someone will re-edit it back. It's actually funny shit you got to catch at that moment of time. lol

It's not like Wiki is top notch. It's just that it's a great site which has tons of topics and always among the top handful of search links, but the depth of each page can be dogshit and short. It comes down to if that page has enough public interest for some editors to make a good page about that person or topic. If not, then it's junk.
 
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige said:
If the end product is good, I'm all for it. Problem is AI recaps can be bad. Google's is often wrong, especially if you search pro athletes where it can get messed up scraping pages because those articles it links to talk about his pro athlete father or brother, so the AI is getting mixed up who is who.

Or you see stupid trolling edits. Check out MMA fights and you'll often get someone editing the page saying something stupid like XXX got knocked out or make a joke, but the fight is still going on. Then a minute later, someone will re-edit it back. It's actually funny shit you got to catch at that moment of time. lol

It's not like Wiki is top notch. It's just that it's a great site which has tons of topics and always among the top handful of search links, but the depth of each page can be dogshit and short. It comes down to if that page has enough public interest for some editors to make a good page about that person or topic. If not, then it's junk.
Click to expand...
It gets things wrong on simple tasks - like I have searched for if a game has been released - and it comes back with 'yes *game* is available to play right now, it released on *gives date two weeks in the future*.'
 
"We need a YouTube alternative!"
"Here's a privately controlled AI-powered Wikipedia alternative that will be used to train future AI models"

When Aliens dig up the ruins of our civilisations, I hope shit like this gives them a good chuckle.
 
StreetsofBeige said:
I hope not.

Made about $100k in AI and quantum stocks in the last 4 weeks.
Click to expand...

Better start shorting Nvidia, it will be a massive correction and there's already talks of a recession. But it will probably take an year or three until it bursts, but get ready.

poppabk said:
It gets things wrong on simple tasks - like I have searched for if a game has been released - and it comes back with 'yes *game* is available to play right now, it released on *gives date two weeks in the future*.'
Click to expand...

Gemini literally hallucinates 25-50% of the time, specially on less know topics. It's actually insane.
 
Last edited:
pachura said:
Leftist bias? Wokepedia?
I mean, if you're only checking articles about Trump, Brexit, Soros, LGBT, Antifa and Palestine, I guess it might be,
but 90% of Wikipedia is about normal neutral stuff, like animals, plants, illnesses, programming, movies etc.
Or is that somehow woke, too?
Click to expand...
Yeah what the fuck is your problem NaziGaf?!? So what if everything that can be politicized has an enforced leftist take?!? Why can't you just accept the rest of Wikipedia uncritically?!

Noooo you can't make a competitor!!!
Angry Wojak GIF by Leroy Patterson
 
Elon buying Twitter had a bigger impact than I expected. A Wikipedia competitor has potential. (beyond keeping woke out of grok.)
 
Last edited:
Regardless of what you think of Grok, or Musk the real discussion topic is around the accuracy of wiki on more biased topics, or the edit battles you see.

I stopped donating to them long ago. People treat it like Delphi but while its value is underpinned by human knowledge its worth is eroded by human management.

I don't think the value prospect here is Grok supplanting Wiki but the outcome of AI being free to create its own Delphi and be measured (going onto other things)
 
Last edited:
Getting real tired of all this shit, it is upsetting, but the reality of it is that it is just the beginning. The further down the rabbit hole we go with all of this, the more I feel like our society is just so obviously a plaything for Musk & his ilk. That's not to diminish the good things that have been done (and there are plenty), but it just feels really wrong for these tech bros to regularly flaunt their power over us like this. I guess it is slightly better than the alternative (not even putting a face to it, and just maneuvering in secret) although when I dwell on it, I am not sure if one is truly worse than the other. I guess, as people, we "like" to have a face to put to it.

Anyway, since nobody asked, my latest personal tinfoil hat scenario is, wondering how much research has been done by the upperest of the crust elites into "what is the possibility that they can literally destroy all of the world with a nuclear winter or something, kill off some amount of the surface life (mainly humans that aren't them) and rebuild the planet as a perfect paradise for only they themselves to inhabit?" I may be watching a few too many 1980s doomsday movies lately... but still..
 
I view certain Wikipedia editors exactly like the petty, power-tripping nutjob mods on Reddit.

I can't see Grokipedia being much of an improvement. How is an AI supposed to determine the trustworthiness of the data when it's learning from this kind of garbage in the first place?
 
Lord Panda said:
I view certain Wikipedia editors exactly like the petty, power-tripping nutjob mods on Reddit.

I can't see Grokipedia being much of an improvement. How is an AI supposed to determine the trustworthiness of the data when it's learning from this kind of garbage in the first place?
Click to expand...
Ideally the same way community notes works, where things get approved when enough people with different viewpoints agree that a note is fair and factually accurate. That said, I'll believe it when I see it, as entire articles are going to be much harder to keep free from bias than a brief note that adds context to a social media post.
 
Wouldn't trust Elon Musk as far as I could through him;.

His freedom of speech is essentially him viewing himself as the main character of the story with all of us as NPC's.

He wants an echo chamber to his views.
 
Riker Laforge said:
Wouldn't trust Elon Musk as far as I could through him;.

His freedom of speech is essentially him viewing himself as the main character of the story with all of us as NPC's.

He wants an echo chamber to his views.
Click to expand...
Its amazing that people are still blind to this. Simply because they perceive certain facts as having a "political agenda".
 
Riker Laforge said:
Wouldn't trust Elon Musk as far as I could through him;.

His freedom of speech is essentially him viewing himself as the main character of the story with all of us as NPC's.

He wants an echo chamber to his views.
Click to expand...
The AI is not actually Elon Musk lol.

You either trust the information we have now or you don't. Do you think Wikipedia is balanced between its sources and non English speaking counterparts? Do you think the moderation and annotations are wholly without bias? Many sources point to government, academia etc.

The fear mongering about this would be valid if Wikipedia didn't pretend to adopt pluralism, but still reflect the dominant cultural narrative.
 
LegendOfKage said:
Ideally the same way community notes works, where things get approved when enough people with different viewpoints agree that a note is fair and factually accurate. That said, I'll believe it when I see it, as entire articles are going to be much harder to keep free from bias than a brief note that adds context to a social media post.
Click to expand...
There are 7 million entries on Wikipedia just for the English language - with most having *made up number* 100's of tweets worth of information - lots of it very specialized. It could work in the long term, but as wikipedia already exists I don't see people putting in the effort beyond Jan 6th, immigration, Islam, trans gender, Epstein or other popular political topics. If the entry for SN2 reactions is wrong who is going to put in the effort to fix it when the wikipedia version already exists?
 
cormack12 said:
Regardless of what you think of Grok, or Musk the real discussion topic is around the accuracy of wiki on more biased topics, or the edit battles you see.

I stopped donating to them long ago. People treat it like Delphi but while its value is underpinned by human knowledge its worth is eroded by human management.

I don't think the value prospect here is Grok supplanting Wiki but the outcome of AI being free to create its own Delphi and be measured (going onto other things)
Click to expand...

My main reason to even be positive about it is because Wikipedia is now Biaspedia, supported by delusional mods. I know the risks of AI, and pretty much how flawed AI is but I would rather try trusting them rather then a bunch of people who manipulate info in their favor. Still, like LegendOfKage LegendOfKage said its better wait and see how it works in practice, but at least with AI theres the possibility of AI learning.
 
Last edited:
Assuming the AI scraping is pretty good, one good thing about an AI driven info data site is it doesn't rely on people doing the writing or editing.

Let's face it. Sometimes you search a topic, or company or game etc... and there's no Wiki entry because nobody on Earth bothered. But if an AI site can go gonzo 24/7 doing info recaps you can get big info pages automated. Problem is.... how good that info will be vs. human editors who will be a combo of honest writers, biased, or simply trollers.
 
Last edited:
ai = what we have now.

AI = general artificial intelligence


Artificial intelligence that is controlled by humans will always be burdened by their beliefs, politics, dreams. True artificial intelligence will be detethered from all that. It will be able to look at everything (all data/information), if allowed, and objectively see truth and reveal truth.

Anybody saying their current AI tool is going to be better is usually saying that they want to control the filter of knowledge.

Elon Musk is Bob Page.
 
What's so woke about Wikipedia? Can anyone at least list a few examples instead of just spouting shit.

edit-

Found something

Empirical evidence for the spherical shape of Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

This must be very woke for flat earthers too, no?

edit 2-

If you think Wikipedia is woke, then you must think Chatgpt is woke as well. They usually have the same views on most topics...

People are even calling science woke nowadays, so I guess we're just living in a weird timeline...
 
Last edited:
Majmun said:
What's so woke about Wikipedia? Can anyone at least list a few examples instead of just spouting shit.
Click to expand...

Before you spout shit you can read Larry Sanger, the co-founder of wikipedia, talk about it extensively over the years. Here, 90 minutes of him recently talking about censorship and control. Have fun:



Weird indeed.
 
Last edited:
violence said:
By making the moderation a lot more lax?
Click to expand...


The problem isn't moderation, it's that he is a man-child who views the world as his toy, when most of the time he's the one objectively signal boosting misinformation. Thus, him opening his own Wikipedia is hilarious.

""https://www.theguardian.com/technol...about-algorithms-as-it-steps-up-investigation

""
Evidence of algorithmic changes
  • Boosting his own posts: In early 2023, after a decline in the reach of his posts, Musk reportedly ordered engineers to alter the algorithm to amplify his visibility. This followed complaints from users that Musk's posts were appearing disproportionately on their "For You" feeds.
  • Targeting rivals: Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, accused Musk in August 2025 of manipulating the algorithm to benefit his own companies and hurt his competitors.
  • Altering political engagement:
    • In a November 2024 study, researchers at Queensland University of Technology found that Musk's posts received a significant boost in engagement—including 138% more views—after he endorsed Donald Trump in July of that year.
    • The study also found that other Republican-leaning accounts experienced smaller but similar boosts, suggesting "platform-level" changes.
  • Prioritizing paid content: A 2024 analysis found that after Musk started selling checkmarks, his new system amplified content from paid subscribers while downplaying the reach of unpaid users.
International regulatory action
  • French criminal investigation: In July 2025, French prosecutors opened a criminal investigation into X over allegations that it manipulated its algorithms for "foreign interference" and fraudulently extracted user data. The probe was prompted by a complaint from a French lawmaker.
  • European Union concerns: The EU has clashed with Musk over compliance with the Digital Services Act (DSA), which is designed to prevent disinformation. Regulators are concerned that Musk could use the algorithm to influence European elections. In early 2025, DW reported that X was under scrutiny for potentially violating the DSA.
X's and Musk's response
  • Denial of bias: X has denied the allegations of algorithm manipulation. In response to the French investigation, the company called the probe "politically-motivated".
  • Claiming "free speech absolutism": Despite the accusations of censorship and manipulation, Musk has often claimed to be a "free speech absolutist," a position criticized by those who observe the platform's changes under his ownership.
  • Algorithm updates: Musk has announced algorithm "tweaks" with the stated goal of reducing "negativity" on the platform and maximizing "un-regretted user-seconds". Critics argue that these changes are a form of censorship and question how "negativity" is defined.
Allegations from competitors and users
  • Mark Cuban: Billionaire Mark Cuban accused Musk of manipulating the algorithm for personal gain.
  • Sam Altman: OpenAI CEO Sam Altman publicly challenged Musk, asking him to sign an affidavit that he had never directed changes to the algorithm to hurt competitors.
  • Users' experiences: Many users have reported changes in their feeds, noting a prevalence of posts from conservative accounts and Elon Musk himself, even when they did not follow them. This has led many to believe that the algorithm is biased. ""
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Elon Musk’s AI bot adds a ridiculous anime companion with ‘NSFW’ mode
News NSFW  2 3 4
152
2K
Lunarorbit replied
You're in a Elon Cab!
13
790
AJUMP23 replied
Is Baby Grok the new AI Drip King, or is he just getting rizzed up by Elon?
6
384
DreamcastSkies replied
Elon Musk vs Sam Altman
2
52
738
ReBurn replied
YouTube Launches AI Age-Verification in U.S., Which Will Automatically Restrict Users Estimated to Be Under 18
2
54
1K
Madserb2023 replied
Top Bottom