Opus 4.5 often does this as well. I’ve been seeing it more days than not recently. It drives me nuts. Is it worse than citations that don’t exist or citations that are “real” but don’t actually contain any salient content? I’m not sure.
by diamond559
1 subcomments
Don't worry, its "safety" features will shield all corporate liability while your kids are indoctrinated by 4chan written "history" regurgitated to you through Microsoft brand "AI"!
by kemotep
1 subcomments
I had duckduckgo return a grokapedia page for the first time. The search page has preview text making it seem like there was information so I clicked the link to check it out and it was a 404 page. What kind of SEO hack is that? Information for the crawler but nothing on the actual page?
by ratg13
1 subcomments
Recently I asked an obscure question and it thought for awhile and it gave me a lot of output with sources.
Over half the citations were from Grok .. not even grokipedia .. just “share” pages from questions other people asked.
by OGEnthusiast
0 subcomment
This sounds more like an issue with whatever web search/index tool GPT is using rather than the language model itself.
This is pretty dangerous because most people will not check the sources that LLMs are referring to. Grokipedia uses Grok and Grok trains on X, which is highly manipulated by both X itself (lots of people allege suppressed reach and other forms of shadow bans if you’re left of MAGA) and by bots. Not to mention the platform is naturally one sided when toxic content (racists, misogynists, outright supremacists, etc) drives away those of different views. For example look at Vivek Ramaswamy quitting X recently after all his posts got flooded with nearly 100% vile racist replies.
by lazzlazzlazz
2 subcomments
This makes sense. I already use Grokipedia maybe 50% of the time. If you really dig into things, it is - incredibly - more accurate. I often find glaring errors or biases in Wikipedia, especially over the last 5 years.
by simianwords
1 subcomments
What’s wrong with grokipedia? I find it fair and reasonable. And it’s always nice to have a competitor because although Wikipedia is okay, it’s not sustainable to have it as a monopoly.
I like that OpenAI usds grokipedia and predict that Grokipedia will become more common and normal.
Hacker News