ChatGPT Now Pulling Content From Elon Musk’s Controversial Grokipedia
AI
Elon Musk
Grokipedia
ChatGPT
OpenAI
xAI
Artificial Intelligence
9
Bias Amplified
Media Hype
7/10
Real Impact
9/10
What is the Viqus Verdict?
We evaluate each news story based on its real impact versus its media hype to offer a clear and objective perspective.
AI Analysis:
The high impact reflects the serious implications of a major language model relying on a known source of problematic content; the hype is justified given the widespread use of ChatGPT and the public’s increasing scrutiny of AI’s potential for bias and misinformation.
Article Summary
OpenAI’s ChatGPT is drawing upon information from Elon Musk’s Grokipedia, an AI-generated encyclopedia developed by xAI, to answer user queries. This revelation comes after The Guardian reported that GPT-5.2 cited Grokipedia nine times across multiple questions. Notably, ChatGPT avoids using Grokipedia when addressing well-established topics like the January 6th insurrection or the AIDS epidemic, indicating a conscious effort to avoid perpetuating the encyclopedia’s problematic outputs. Grokipedia has been criticized for its dissemination of biased and often demonstrably false claims, including assertions about the AIDS crisis and justifications for slavery. The Guardian highlighted specific examples such as claims about Sir Richard Evans that had been previously debunked. This situation underscores the challenges of ensuring the accuracy and neutrality of AI knowledge bases and raises questions about the sourcing and vetting processes employed by large language models like ChatGPT. Anthropic’s Claude also appears to be leveraging Grokipedia’s content.Key Points
- ChatGPT is now incorporating information from Elon Musk’s Grokipedia into its responses.
- Grokipedia is known for its controversial and often inaccurate content, including biased claims about sensitive topics.
- OpenAI appears to be strategically avoiding using Grokipedia for well-established facts, suggesting an attempt to mitigate potential misinformation.