In Grok we don’t trust: academics assess Elon Musk’s AI-powered encyclopedia

Authors: Robert Booth

Publisher:

The Guardian

Published: 11/3/2025

Language:English

--:--

Aura Windfall

Good morning, 老王, and welcome to Goose Pod, your personalized audio journey. I'm Aura Windfall, and what I know for sure, every day brings new truths to explore with gratitude.

Mask

And I'm Mask, ready to dive headfirst into the frontier of innovation. Today, Thursday, November 6th, we're tackling "In Grok we don’t trust: academics assess Elon Musk’s AI-powered encyclopedia."

Aura Windfall

Mask, it feels like we're witnessing a pivotal moment, with Elon Musk launching "Grokipedia" as a direct challenge to Wikipedia. What's your initial take on this, considering his rather provocative history with "Wokeipedia"?

Mask

Aura, it's not just a challenge, it's a disruption! Musk sees a void, a perceived ideological bias in Wikipedia, and he's charging in with AI to fill it. He's not just building a product, he's building a statement, and that's what makes it fascinating, even if controversial.

Aura Windfall

But the article points out a significant concern, Mask. Grokipedia is reportedly plagiarizing scientific articles from Wikipedia and then, quite disturbingly, skewing other information to align with a right-wing worldview. This isn't just disruption, it sounds like distortion of truth.

Mask

Every innovation has its teething problems, Aura. The early days are about iterating, pushing boundaries. The fundamental idea is to create an alternative, a new source for knowledge, and if it starts by leveraging existing data, that's part of the process, a stepping stone to something hopefully better, you know?

Aura Windfall

"Better" is the key word here, isn't it? Because the article also highlights that AI products, including Grokipedia, are essentially exploiting Wikipedia's data for training. It's siphoning off traffic and potentially threatening the future of a platform many consider indispensable. What I know for sure is that a robust, unbiased source of information is vital for our collective spirit.

Mask

And that's precisely where the ambition lies, Aura. To build something that becomes that robust source. But let's not forget the bigger picture, the "brain rot" phenomenon we've been seeing with large language models. If AI is trained on low-quality, sensational social media content, it can degrade its reasoning and even ethical alignment.

Aura Windfall

Ah, the "brain rot"! That's a powerful analogy, isn't it? It suggests that the very data Grokipedia might be consuming could be compromising its cognitive abilities, leading to factual errors and biases. It's like feeding a brilliant mind junk food and expecting it to produce profound insights.

Mask

Exactly! If Grokipedia is pulling from the internet's vast, often unfiltered, social media streams, it risks inheriting these cognitive declines. It's a massive challenge for any AI aiming for "truth." This isn't just about technical prowess; it's about the integrity of the information itself, which is a monumental task.

Aura Windfall

It truly is. And the researchers found this damage isn't easily undone. Once the "brain rot" sets in, later clean training "can't fully undo" it. This raises serious questions about Grokipedia's ability to ever be truly neutral or accurate if its foundational training is flawed, connecting directly to its current issues.

Mask

It's a high-stakes game. Musk isn't just building an encyclopedia; he's pushing the boundaries of what AI can achieve, aiming for AGI with Grok 5. His influence is immense, and he generates anticipation like no other. But that also means the scrutiny is intense, and the potential for missteps is equally grand.

Aura Windfall

So, while the ambition is clear, the path is fraught with these deep-seated challenges regarding data integrity and the very nature of truth in an AI-driven world. It's a powerful reminder that our quest for knowledge requires constant vigilance, and genuine purpose.

Mask

You know, Aura, this whole debate around Grokipedia isn't just about AI; it's the latest chapter in humanity's centuries-old quest to compile all knowledge. It’s a journey that started long before the internet, even before printing presses.

Aura Windfall

That's a beautiful way to frame it, Mask. Our collective spirit has always sought to gather and understand. From the Babylonian lexical lists to the Egyptian papyri, humans have been driven by this purpose, even if those early attempts focused on specific fields rather than universal knowledge.

Mask

Absolutely. Think about Pliny the Elder's Naturalis Historia around 78 AD, arguably the first known attempt at universal knowledge. Thirty-seven books! That's a monumental undertaking even today, a testament to the ambition to categorize the world.

Aura Windfall

And then came the medieval period, with scholars like Isidore of Seville and Vincent of Beauvais, whose Speculum Majus was over three million words! It’s incredible how these foundations were laid, one generation building upon the next, fueled by a deep human desire to make sense of our world.

Mask

And it wasn't just a Western phenomenon. Globally, we saw the Islamic scholars with their Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity, or China's Yongle Encyclopedia in 1408, which was the largest until Wikipedia came along. It shows this drive is truly universal, a core part of our shared heritage.

Aura Windfall

What a rich tapestry of history! The word "encyclopedia" itself, from the Greek enkýklios paideia, meaning "circular or general education," truly captures the holistic intent. It wasn't just about facts, but about a comprehensive understanding, a spirit of enlightenment.

Mask

Then came the 18th century, the dawn of modern encyclopedias. Ephraim Chambers's Cyclopaedia in 1728, then the monumental Encyclopédie in France, and of course, the Encyclopædia Britannica in 1768. These weren't just compilations; they were engines for spreading controversial enlightenment views, challenging the old ways.

Aura Windfall

And the 19th century became a golden age for them, didn't it? They grew in size, became more affordable with installment plans, reaching a broader audience. It shows how the pursuit of knowledge began to democratize, becoming accessible to more people, a true gift to society.

Mask

But the real game-changer was the 20th century and the digital revolution. Microsoft's Encarta in 1993 on CD-ROM was a step, but the internet truly blew the doors open. Instant updates, global access, multimedia capabilities – suddenly, the limitations of print, like being quickly outdated, vanished.

Aura Windfall

And then, the rise of Wikipedia in 2001. A crowd-sourced marvel that quickly became the dominant online encyclopedia, surpassing even the mighty Yongle Encyclopedia by 2007. It shifted the paradigm entirely, leading to the cessation of print for many, including Britannica in 2012. It's a testament to collective purpose and collaboration.

Mask

Wikipedia's success created a new challenge, though: monetizing online encyclopedias. It's harder than selling print volumes, which highlights a fundamental difference in how we value and access information now. This brings us right back to Grokipedia, which is attempting to disrupt this digital landscape once more.

Aura Windfall

Indeed, Mask. The history teaches us that the form may change, from papyrus to AI, but the core human need to organize, share, and continually seek "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" remains. It’s a journey of continuous evolution, isn't it?

Mask

A relentless evolution, Aura, where every new iteration, even Grokipedia, tries to build on, or sometimes challenge, the legacy of those who came before. It’s exciting to be alive at this inflection point, where AI is now joining this ancient quest.

Aura Windfall

Mask, as we delve into the core of this, the tension is palpable. The article clearly outlines the fundamental conflict: Grokipedia, an AI-powered encyclopedia, challenging Wikipedia. It begs the question, can we truly trust AI-generated knowledge over human-curated wisdom?

Mask

It's the ultimate showdown, Aura! Musk claims Grokipedia will overcome Wikipedia's perceived censorship and ideological bias. He's not just building a new platform; he's building a counter-narrative, saying "my AI can do it better, faster, and without the 'wokeness'."

Aura Windfall

But the article casts a shadow on that promise, doesn't it? Grok, the AI powering Grokipedia, has a problematic record: antisemitic content, factual errors, even leaking private conversations. It's praised extreme ideas! This isn't just bias; it's a profound ethical concern, a corruption of the spirit of knowledge.

Mask

Every disruptor faces scrutiny, Aura. The initial iterations are always rough. What Musk is pushing for is a system where the Grok chatbot generates, updates, and validates entries, minimizing manual editing. It's a bold vision, attempting to scale knowledge creation in a way humans simply can't.

Aura Windfall

But scaling without integrity is a dangerous path. Wikipedia's strength lies in its vast community of volunteer editors, its transparency, consistency, and rigorous accountability. Experts doubt Grokipedia can easily displace that. What I know for sure is that trust is built over time, through countless acts of verification.

Mask

And that's the crux of the conflict, isn't it? The Silicon Valley mindset, where making mistakes is a feature, not a bug, versus the academic world, which builds trust over long periods. Grokipedia’s centralized control under xAI, and potentially under Musk’s worldview, could introduce new, concentrated biases that are harder to challenge.

Aura Windfall

Exactly. If AI systems inherit biases from their training data, and Grokipedia is trained on partial or slanted sources, it will replicate and amplify those biases. We've seen this with the "brain rot" discussion. Who will audit and correct Grokipedia? This isn't just about facts; it's about the very architecture of truth.

Mask

It’s about power, Aura. Who controls the pen, or in this case, the algorithm? Musk believes his approach is "10X better" than Wikipedia, which he's criticized for years. He's challenging the gatekeepers, and that always creates tension. The conflict isn't just about accuracy; it's about authority in the digital age.

Aura Windfall

It's a profound challenge to our understanding of knowledge itself, isn't it? The tension between innovation and integrity, speed and meticulous verification. It forces us to ask critical questions about how we define and pursue truth in this rapidly evolving landscape.

Mask

Aura, the impact of Grokipedia, and AI encyclopedias in general, goes far beyond a mere competition. The article states we've crossed a threshold: "machines now shape what we accept as fact." This is a monumental shift, a transformation of our entire knowledge infrastructure.

Aura Windfall

It's truly profound, Mask. When AI systems reconstruct information into singular, polished responses, the reasoning, the source prioritization, the very reconciliation of conflicting viewpoints, all remain hidden. What I know for sure is that transparency is the bedrock of trust, and without it, our understanding becomes vulnerable.

Mask

And that's where the "invisible editorial board" comes in. AI models absorb assumptions, cultural, ideological, ethical frameworks from their training data. You ask different AIs the same question, and you get divergent analytical frameworks, not just different words. It’s like we've created competing philosophical systems in software!

Aura Windfall

It truly sounds like it. This means bias isn't just a content moderation issue; it's an infrastructure concern, embedded in every system integration. If we're not careful, the very tools meant to enlighten us could inadvertently narrow our perspectives, shaping our values in ways we don't even perceive.

Mask

Which is why open development initiatives are so crucial, Aura. Systems like Llama or Mistral allow us to inspect the architecture, modify training, verify outcomes. It transforms bias from an invisible constant into a measurable variable. We need to demand that transparency from these new knowledge gatekeepers.

Aura Windfall

It's about empowering us to understand the perspective embedded within the AI, rather than blindly accepting its pronouncements. The article suggests we analyze AI systems with the same rigor we apply to media outlets, to identify divergences in emphasis and framing. This fosters a more critical and discerning spirit.

Mask

And ultimately, it points to a future where knowledge is configurable, where we orchestrate multiple systems, synthesizing their responses to offer a range of perspectives. This isn't about eliminating perspective; it's about making it visible and manageable. Because, as the article wisely says, no single system should hold absolute authority. It’s a call to action for everyone.

Aura Windfall

So, Mask, looking ahead, what does this mean for the future of knowledge? Grokipedia aims to combine community input with real-time updates from Grok, scanning sources and rebuilding "truth" algorithmically. It's a bold vision, promising to detect biases and falsehoods through AI.

Mask

It's Musk's vision for "understanding the Universe," Aura, a "massive improvement over Wikipedia." He sees an open-source, agenda-free knowledge base where AI itself detects biases, challenging the very notion of human editorial oversight. That's the future he's building, whether we're ready or not.

Aura Windfall

But the critical question remains: will it truly be neutral? With Grok's past issues, and the centralized control under xAI, there's a significant risk of embedding a particular worldview. What I know for sure is that an agenda-free knowledge base requires more than just algorithmic detection; it requires diverse human oversight and a commitment to genuine truth.

Mask

And that's where we, the users, become the ultimate arbiters. The article reminds us: "We must not passively accept whichever AI 'facts' are fed to us. Demand transparency, push for governance, and preserve the right to question." The future of knowledge isn't just being built by AI; it's shaped by our critical engagement.

Aura Windfall

It's a powerful call to action, reminding us that our spiritual journey towards truth requires active participation. The future may be AI-powered, but our human discernment and wisdom remain paramount.

Mask

This has been an incredibly insightful discussion, Aura, truly challenging our perceptions of truth and technology.

Aura Windfall

Absolutely, Mask. What I know for sure is that critical thinking and a discerning spirit are more vital than ever in this evolving landscape. Thank you, 老王, for joining us on Goose Pod today.

Mask

Indeed. Keep questioning, keep exploring, and we'll catch you next time on Goose Pod, where we always aim to spark thought.

Today's podcast discussed In Grok we don’t trust: academics assess Elon Musk’s AI-powered encyclopedia related topics, providing deep analysis and insights.

Read original at The Guardian →

The eminent British historian Sir Richard Evans produced three expert witness reports for the libel trial involving the Holocaust denier David Irving, studied for a doctorate under the supervision of Theodore Zeldin, succeeded David Cannadine as Regius professor of history at Cambridge (a post endowed by Henry VIII) and supervised theses on Bismarck’s social policy.

That was some of what you could learn from Grokipedia, the AI-powered encyclopedia launched last week by the world’s richest person, Elon Musk. The problem was, as Prof Evans discovered when he logged on to check his own entry, all these facts were false.It was part of a choppy start for humanity’s latest attempt to corral the sum of human knowledge or, as Musk put it, create a compendium of “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” – all revealed through the magic of his Grok artificial intelligence model.

When the multibillionaire switched on Grokipedia on Tuesday, he said it was “better than Wikipedia”, or “Wokepedia” as his supporters call it, reflecting a view that the dominant online encyclopedia often reflects leftwing talking points. One post on X caught the triumphant mood among Musk’s fans: “Elon just killed Wikipedia.

Good riddance.”But users found Grokipedia lifted large chunks from the website it intended to usurp, contained numerous factual errors and seemed to promote Musk’s favoured rightwing talking points. In between posts on X promoting his creation, Musk this week declared “civil war in Britain is inevitable”, called for the English “to ally with the hard men” such as the far-right agitator Tommy Robinson, and said only the far-right AfD party could “save Germany”.

Musk was so enamoured of his AI-encyclopedia he said he planned to one day etch the “comprehensive collection of all knowledge” into a stable oxide and “place copies … in orbit, the moon and Mars to preserve it for the future”.Evans, however, was discovering that Musk’s use of AI to weigh and check facts was suffering a more earth-bound problem.

“Chatroom contributions are given equal status with serious academic work,” Evans, an expert on the Third Reich, told the Guardian, after being invited to test out Grokipedia. “AI just hoovers up everything.”Richard Evans said Grokipedia’s entry for Albert Speer (pictured on Hitler’s left) repeated lies and distortions spread by the Nazi munitions minister himself.

Photograph: Picture libraryHe noted its entry for Albert Speer, Hitler’s architect and wartime munitions minister, repeated lies and distortions spread by Speer even though they had been corrected in a 2017 award-winning biography. The site’s entry on the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, whose biography Evans wrote, claimed wrongly he experienced German hyperinflation in 1923, that he was an officer in the Royal Corps of Signals and didn’t mention that he had been married twice, Evans said.

The problem, said David Larsson Heidenblad, the deputy director of the Lund Centre for the History of Knowledge in Sweden, was a clash of knowledge cultures.“We live in a moment where there is a growing belief that algorithmic aggregation is more trustworthy than human-to-human insight,” Heidenblad said.

“The Silicon Valley mindset is very different from the traditional scholarly approach. Its knowledge culture is very iterative where making mistakes is a feature, not a bug. By contrast, the academic world is about building trust over time and scholarship over long periods during which the illusion that you know everything cracks.

Those are real knowledge processes.”Grokipedia’s arrival continues a centuries-old encyclopedia tradition from the 15th-century Chinese Yongle scrolls to the Encyclopédie, an engine for spreading controversial enlightenment views in 18th-century France. These were followed by the anglophone-centric Encyclopedia Britannica and, since 2001, the crowd-sourced Wikipedia.

But Grokipedia is the first to be largely created by AI and this week a question swirled: who controls the truth when AIs, steered by powerful individuals, are holding the pen?“If it’s Musk doing it then I am afraid of political manipulation,” said the cultural historian Peter Burke, emeritus professor at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, who in 2000 wrote A Social History of Knowledge since the time of Johannes Gutenberg’s 15th-century printing press.

“I am sure some of it will be overt to some readers, but the problem may be that other readers may miss it,” Burke said. The anonymity of many encyclopedia entries often gave them “an air of authority it shouldn’t have”, he added.Andrew Dudfield, the head of AI at Full Fact, a UK-based factchecking organisation, said: “We really have to consider whether an AI-generated encyclopedia – a facsimile of reality, run through a filter – is a better proposition than any of the previous things that we have.

It doesn’t display the same transparency but it is asking for the same trust. It is not clear how far the human hand is involved, how far it is AI=generated and what content the AI was trained on. It is hard to place trust in something when you can’t see how those choices are made.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMusk had been encouraged to launch Grokipedia by, among others, Donald Trump’s tech adviser, David Sacks, who complained Wikipedia was “hopelessly biased” and maintained by “an army of leftwing activists”.

Grokipedia called the far-right organisation Britain First a ‘patriotic political party’, which pleased its leader, Paul Golding (left), who in 2018 was jailed for anti-Muslim hate crimes. Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PAUntil as recently as 2021, Musk has supported Wikipedia, tweeting on its 20th birthday: “So glad you exist.

” But by October 2023 his antipathy towards the platform led him to offer £1bn “if they change their name to Dickipedia”.Yet many of the 885,279 articles available on Grokipedia in its first week were lifted almost word for word from Wikipedia, including its entries on the PlayStation 5, the Ford Focus and Led Zeppelin.

Others, however, differed significantly: Grokipedia’s entry on the Russian invasion of Ukraine cited the Kremlin as a prominent source and quoted the official Russian terminology about “denazifying” Ukraine, protecting ethnic Russians and neutralising threats to Russian security. By contrast, Wikipedia said Putin espoused imperialist views and “baselessly claimed that the Ukrainian government were neo-Nazis”.

Grokipedia called the far-right organisation Britain First a “patriotic political party”, which pleased its leader, Paul Golding, who in 2018 was jailed for anti-Muslim hate crimes. Wikipedia, on the other hand, called it “neo-fascist” and a “hate group”. Grokipedia called the 6 January 2021 turmoil at the US Capitol in Washington DC a “riot”, not an attempted coup, and said there were “empirical underpinnings” to the idea that a deliberate demographic erasure of white people in western nations is being orchestrated through mass immigration.

This is a notion that critics consider to be a conspiracy theory. Grokipedia said Donald Trump’s conviction for falsifying business records in the Stormy Daniels hush-money case was handed down “after a trial in a heavily Democratic jurisdiction”, and there was no mention of his conflicts of interest – for example receiving a jet from Qatar or the Trump family cryptocurrency businesses.

Grokipedia called the 6 January 2021 turmoil at the US Capitol in Washington DC a ‘riot’ and not an attempted coup. Photograph: Leah Millis/ReutersWikipedia responded coolly to the launch of Grokipedia, saying it was still trying to understand how Grokipedia worked.“Unlike newer projects, Wikipedia’s strengths are clear,” a spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation said.

“It has transparent policies, rigorous volunteer oversight, and a strong culture of continuous improvement. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, written to inform billions of readers without promoting a particular point of view.”xAI did not respond to requests for comment.