Grokipedia by xAI
141 comments
·October 27, 2025cozzyd
palmotea
> Hilarious factual errors in https://grokipedia.com/page/Green_Line_(CTA)
Impossible! That article was "Fact checked by Grok yesterday!"
I'm glad we've solved the LLM hallucination problem by fact-checking with LLMs. No way that could go wrong.
roryirvine
I've spotted surprising amounts of confidently-stated nonsense even in fairly neutral articles where Elon / xAI is unlikely to have a particular political slant.
Many of the most glaring errors are linked to references which either directly contradict Grokipedia's assertion or don't mention the supposed fact one way or the other.
I guess this is down to LLM hallucinations? I've not used Grok before, but the problems I spotted in 15 mins of casual browsing made it feel like the output of SoA models 2-3 years ago.
Has this been done on the cheap? I suspect that xAI should probably have prioritised quality over quantity for the initial launch.
rsynnott
> I suspect that xAI should probably have prioritised quality over quantity for the initial launch.
I mean, I don't think this is _for_ people who care about quality, tbh. For those, there is wikipedia. This is more of a safe space for Musk.
palmotea
> I mean, I don't think this is _for_ people who care about quality, tbh. For those, there is wikipedia. This is more of a safe space for Musk.
Wikipedia isn't for those who care about quality, either. It's still quantity over quality, just not as badly as this LLM garbage.
TYPE_FASTER
> I've spotted surprising amounts of confidently-stated nonsense
I find this to be the most annoying aspect of AI. The initial Google AI results were especially bad. It is getting better, but still spout info I know is false without any warning.
Like, I find blowhards tiring enough in RL. Don't really want to deal with artificial blowhards when I'm trying to solve a problem.
extraduder_ire
Might be a good idea to copy some example snippets. The website doesn't have a revision history and could change after you post a link.
LudwigNagasena
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.
cozzyd
Apologetics has a well-defined meaning. In this case, it's a bad faith deluge of out-of-context non-sequiturs posing as a coherent argument in order to defend something deplorable.
croes
>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.
dmix
It's not presenting that as an opinion or purely facts-based though, it's documenting other narratives that exist in the world under a "Legacy and Critical Assessments" headline.
sebastiennight
You're describing a very charitable scenario. You might get those outcomes while still fighting against literacy and high wages.
Since a rising tide lifts all boats, in a growing economy you might see wages, literacy and health outcomes improve nominally for an oppressed group, in absolute terms, while all of these outcomes improve significantly faster for the other group(s) in the same period.
a0123
No you can't.
You also don't seem to understand "apologetics"?
qingcharles
As a Green Line enjoyer, I'm not enough of an expert to spot the factual errors. The article does seem a bit much though. I've noticed a lot of the Grokipedia articles just go on. If I wanted to know that much about the Green Line I could probably just buy a book on it.
cozzyd
Among the more obvious errors are short runs to UIC/Halsted and a northwestern trajectory along Lake St from the loop.
But yes, it also suffers from attention to irrelevant detail.
cozzyd
Keeping with the Green theme the page on Green's Functions (https://grokipedia.com/page/Green's_function) sounds like it's having a stroke
113
The problem I have with most AI output like this is that it's just a huge wall of text that doesn't really say anything.
TYPE_FASTER
While ChatGPT tells me it's unable to access the linked page directly from Grokipedia (lolol), I was able to download the content, copy/paste it into ChatGPT, and ask it to fact check it. I think I will do this more often, with other sites (and other models) as well, going forward, as Chat is able to categorize statements as being correct vs. misleading vs. flat out wrong.
> The article does seem a bit much though. I've noticed a lot of the Grokipedia articles just go on.
And yes, that's what I'm noticing as well. There is a clear attempt to establish a narrative.
davydm
I'm no apartheid apologist, but I have lived here (ZA) all my life.
Whilst I haven't read the entire article, the first paragraph is actually on-point: apartheid was shit in a lot of respects, but the schools, especially in rural areas, have dramatically declined since 1994, as have most government-run companies (with the exceptions like Eskom being bailed out every year).
You don't have to like the facts, but that's what they are.
tim333
Yeah I used to date a coloured girl from Jo'berg who'd grown up in that era and she was positive that they had some degree of prosperity and modern comforts unlike the surrounding African countries. The overwhelming flow of people voting with their feet and walking across the borders was from the surrounding countries to SA rather than vice versa.
iloveyou1xrobot
But this is literal apartheid apologia.
Saying "advancements in black literacy and real wages during the era" as if those things are due to apartheid is offensively absurd.
How about we advance literacy and wages without, you know, all the apartheid.
balaz
By "we" I will understand that you mean Africans. Otherwise, you might be committing one (1) colonialism.
So, ask the rest of Africa how that has gone for them.
a0123
I wonder if something called "context" and the socio-economic direction might have something to do with it.
"I think we gotta hand it to Apartheid because schools were very slightly less worse" isn't the argument you think it is. It does paint where you stand quite clearly.
Never start a sentence with "I'm no apartheid apologist, but". Nothing good can ever come out of it.
reaperducer
Hilarious factual errors in https://grokipedia.com/page/Green_Line_(CTA)
Weird that it displaying some other web site's embed/shortcodes:
> ![Cottage Grove-bound Green Line train approaching Roosevelt station][float-right] The Green Line utilizes primarily 5000-series railcars
cozzyd
Strange indeed. That feels like it shouldn't happen at all.
dzhiurgis
[flagged]
churchill
Do you mean Elon Musk? Bryanston High School and Pretoria Boys High School were all-white, so any beating he received (I'm assuming you're referring to the same savage incident Kimball was) was at the hands of other white boys.
So, being attacked and nearly killed by other white boys does not validate his opinions on apartheid.
a0123
Ah yes, America. The place where you get beaten to death for being a fascist asshole. It is well known. Famously.
rsynnott
I feel like ‘Wikipedia for stupid people’ is already quite a crowded market, tbh.
mudkipdev
Silly glitch on the page: https://grokipedia.com/page/Sri_Lanka
lewismenelaws
Looking 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.
tim333
Comparing 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
You'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.
thsName
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.
nunez
I compared Grokipedia's entry on the band "American Football" [^0] to Wikipedia's [^1] and they are _almost_ the same. While Grok does attribute Wikipedia in the footer, they added this to their article:
> On July 2, 2025, the band released their first live album, American Football (Live in Los Angeles), recorded during the anniversary shows at the El Rey Theatre in Los Angeles with guest appearances by Ethel Cain and M.A.G.S., accompanied by a concert film documenting the performance.
If you go to the source [^4] for this claim, you'll see that:
- They dropped a film of the same name alongside the album release.
- The "guest appearances" are actually interviews in the film.
- The entry excluded the female artist that was cited in the source.
I, then, compared Grok's entry on United Airlines [^2] against Wikipedia's [^3]. Grok's seemed to be autogenerated this time.
I skipped to the section on MileagePlus since I know a bit about how that program works. It has a few inaccuracies:
- It only lists the four published MileagePlus tiers: Silver, Gold, Platinum and 1K and omits the two unpublished, but well-known, tiers above 1K: Global Services and Chairman's Circle.
- The 2025 premier qualifying point (PQP) redemptions are actually from 2024.
- Some of the language it uses wouldn't meet Wikipedia's editorial standards, like the nebulous "priority everything" benefit from obtaining 1K status (whose source is unclear, as neither of the two sources cited use this phrase).
- "The current logo features a stylized "U" incorporating a world map outline, symbolizing global connectivity" That's United's old logo. They absorbed Continental's logo when they merged.
- The article opens with the claim that United has 1018 aircraft in its fleet as of APR 2025, then, later, states that it has 1,001 active aircraft as of OCT 2025. The source for the 1,001 figure states 1,055 on the page with 1,003 in revenue service.
So I wouldn't use Grokipedia as a source for anything, just like Wikipedia, though I'm sure some will try.
[^0]: https://archive.is/twkBP (might not be available yet; it's still getting archived)
[^1]: https://archive.ph/lOkdT
[^2]: https://archive.ph/EnN2T
[^3]: https://archive.ph/uooNW
[^4]: https://pitchfork.com/news/american-football-to-share-new-li...
Yizahi
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.
CapricornNoble
>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.
The EU isn't exactly known for being Kremlin propagandists. Here is the link to the 700-page international fact-finding report they published in 2009: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/hudoc_38263_08_Ann...
This Radio Free Europe article is a decent summary of the report: https://www.rferl.org/a/EU_Report_On_2008_War_Tilts_Against_...
Why do you think the international team of Europeans would leave out something like an August 1st attack by Russian forces? Why would the US-funded media outlet for Europe (RFE/RFL) parrot the report's position that the conflict was overwhelmingly Georgia's fault?
"The Mission is not in a position to consider as sufficiently substantiated the Georgian claim concerning a large-scale Russian military incursion into South Ossetia before 8 August 2008."
Can you share the evidence you have that supports your position that Russia attacked on 01 August? The EU concluded that was unsubstantiated.
Yizahi
EU in 2008 was extremely biased towards Russia too, the appeasement was going full tilt, just like the tasty gas in the pipeline, so they are not exactly impartial party. I'm generally inclined to believe a victim country, not the invading empire, but you do you. And inconclusive doesn't mean definitely ruled out. Can be lack of evidence for either outcome.
And if you are that suspicious of that date, we can pick another. In 1992 Russia invaded independent Georgia (among other countries), so any action was towards occupation force, in defense.
PS: and if look throughout the history, we will find very few cases, when a smaller country attacks much bigger one especially after already losing at least one fight against them. And the opposite is true, there are hundreds and thousands of cases when a bigger country attacks the smaller one, especially after already winning once against them. And countless times when a bigger country lied about pretext for such attack, to be seen as not crazy murderers outright, but muddy waters and sow doubt. Russia succeeded it seems.
slater
Yeah 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
This 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.
reaperducer
empirical
It really likes that word, and seems to use it a lot to justify displaying its owner's views.
slater
Not so fast! Heard u liked utterly whitewashed nonsense?
https://grokipedia.com/page/Republican_Party_(United_States)
techblueberry
I’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.
nake13
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 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
Why build a synthetic data Wikipedia when Wikipedia exists? Except to push some political point like Grokipedia seems to be for.
nake13
Wikipedia’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.
mellosouls
I 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.
dabinat
I 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.
Gigachad
I 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.
archagon
Without Wikipedia's corpus, today's AI might not even be possible.
hagbard_c
Oh 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.
CSMastermind
Seems 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
It's yet another scam/beta product. He's testing the waters to see if it can be turned into a commercial project.
verdverm
I'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
qustrolabe
this 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
srid
See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45424533
Does anyone know why replies are disabled in that other submission?
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)