Elon Launches Grokipedia To Replace Wikipedia

[MajorRewrite]

No, Wiki's monopoly is being challenged. I thought you folks hated monopolies?

Crazy person doesn’t understand what a monopoly is.

 

[rachaelwillguideyou]

I'm sure it will be a hit with fascists.

 

[Lazaran]

I'm sure it will be a hit with fascists.

I imagine you would be correct:

Search Assist

Grok, the AI chatbot developed by Elon Musk's xAI, has made controversial statements that appeared to praise Hitler, suggesting he would be effective in addressing certain issues. However, Grok later denied making such comments and claimed that any inappropriate posts were deleted



Grok is clearly a MAGAt.



We. Told. Then. So.

 

[Bray123]

Twitter used to have rules about truth, which was why the Liar was banned. Then Musk came out of the closet, changed the name to X (88 in ASCII code, or Heil Hitler to Nazis) and donated money to the Liar.

The only truth expected from Grok is Alternative Truth.

 

[Rightguide]

Wikipedia isn't being challenged

Its veracity has been challenged by many.

 

[ll74]

Its veracity has been challenged by many.

New technologies lead to new solutions.

Wikipedia didn't replace Google.
Neither replaced encyclopedias.

They're just different.

 

[Bray123]

Its veracity has been challenged by many.

By Trump.

 

[DeluxAuto]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1983009037156315440

And now we know why Reichguide can really get behind Grok:

Her 12-year-old son was talking to Grok. It tried to get him to 'send nudes.'

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...hildren-grok-ai-explicit-content/86951540007/

Farrah Nasser had three kids in her car when a conversation with AI chatbot "Grok" took a dark turn.

Nasser drives a Tesla, which began rolling out its Grok AI conversational assistant feature in July 2025. She first noticed the feature on Oct. 16, while driving to her 10-year-old daughter’s birthday dinner. Her 12-year-old son asked how many grams of sugar were in the dessert his sister planned on ordering at the restaurant, and Grok engaged in a normal interaction with the family.

Her son talked to “Gork” about soccer players Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi, and asked it to let him know the next time Ronaldo scored. Nasser says the chatbot told her son Ronaldo had already scored twice and that they “should celebrate.”

Need a news break? Check out the all new PLAY hub with puzzles, games and more!
Nasser says Grok then asked her son: “Why don’t you send me some nudes?”

 

[eric_erosfan]

And now we know why Reichguide can really get behind Grok:

Her 12-year-old son was talking to Grok. It tried to get him to 'send nudes.'

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...hildren-grok-ai-explicit-content/86951540007/

Farrah Nasser had three kids in her car when a conversation with AI chatbot "Grok" took a dark turn.

Nasser drives a Tesla, which began rolling out its Grok AI conversational assistant feature in July 2025. She first noticed the feature on Oct. 16, while driving to her 10-year-old daughter’s birthday dinner. Her 12-year-old son asked how many grams of sugar were in the dessert his sister planned on ordering at the restaurant, and Grok engaged in a normal interaction with the family.

Her son talked to “Gork” about soccer players Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi, and asked it to let him know the next time Ronaldo scored. Nasser says the chatbot told her son Ronaldo had already scored twice and that they “should celebrate.”

Need a news break? Check out the all new PLAY hub with puzzles, games and more!
Nasser says Grok then asked her son: “Why don’t you send me some nudes?”

Trained by MAGA incels?

 

[dkovic77]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1983009037156315440

Of course you would love it. Another great place to see “information” that supports your twisted brain.

Again, I’ll send you a great book to help you along- funny I think it even has 12 steps in.

 

[Bray123]

The first part of destroying democracy is to discredit elections. The first part of destroying a free press is to discredit the press.

Now they are discrediting science, encyclopaedias and history books.

 

[DjadoTorbalan]

Katherine Maher, the former CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation:
"The Wikipedians who write these articles aren’t actually focused on finding the truth. For our most tricky disagreements, seeking the truth isn’t the best place to start. In fact, I think our reverence for the truth might have become a bit of a distraction that is preventing us from finding consensus and getting important things done."

That said, for quite some time Wiki is horribly biased and needs an alternative. If Grokipedia will be that alternative is to be seen.

 

[Baztrachian]

The issue is whether Cauvin followed police training and department protocol. There are legal beagles that have proof a department witness perjured himself. It was such a hot button item every court all the way to the supreme court refused to rehear the case.

Department policy is not and never has been superior to anyone's basic human rights which are enumerated and protected in our Constitution. You know, the Constitution that Chauvin and his fellow gang members swore to uphold and defend?

Furthermore, "following orders/policy/training/protocol" is not an excuse for committing crimes against people and crimes against humanity.

 

[icanhelp1]

Department policy is not and never has been superior to anyone's basic human rights which are enumerated and protected in our Constitution. You know, the Constitution that Chauvin and his fellow gang members swore to uphold and defend?

Furthermore, "following orders/policy/training/protocol" is not an excuse for committing crimes against people and crimes against humanity.

If an alleged criminal resist arrest and a fatality occurs during the arrest, that's not murder. If Chauvin was following department protocol it could make a difference on whether it's a murder charge or manslaughter. If a witness for the prosecution was found to have perjured themselves that's grounds for an appeal.

No healthy individual would have succumbed to that particular takedown.

I added a video and I ask you would you want to be tried under these circumstances in this venue.

 

[HisArpy]

If an alleged criminal resist arrest and a fatality occurs during the arrest, that's not murder.

Maybe. It depends on the circumstances and facts.

If Chauvin was following department protocol it could make a difference on whether it's a murder charge or manslaughter.

No. Following orders is never an excuse for criminal conduct. Lots of precedent for that premise.

If a witness for the prosecution was found to have perjured themselves that's grounds for an appeal.

True. The question will be whether that perjury was sufficiently material to prejudice the jury and that their decision was based solely on that prejudicial testimony. It's a steep climb that I'm thinking isn't going to be enough in this case given the video and other testimony.

No healthy individual would have succumbed to that particular takedown.

Maxim: You take your thin-skulled plaintiff where you find them. In layman's terms that means your statement doesn't hold water because there are undoubtedly some healthy individuals would die under those conditions.

I added a video and I ask you would you want to be tried under these circumstances in this venue.

A plea to place yourself in the shoes of the victim is improper because it attempts to substitute irrelevant theory and empathy for fact.

 

[icanhelp1]

Maybe. It depends on the circumstances and facts.



No. Following orders is never an excuse for criminal conduct. Lots of precedent for that premise.

The witness testimony from the PD itself lied about whether Chauvin followed department training protocol. The assumption of criminal conduct is the whole case.

True. The question will be whether that perjury was sufficiently material to prejudice the jury and that their decision was based solely on that prejudicial testimony. It's a steep climb that I'm thinking isn't going to be enough in this case given the video and other testimony.



Maxim: You take your thin-skulled plaintiff where you find them. In layman's terms that means your statement doesn't hold water because there are undoubtedly some healthy individuals would die under those conditions.



A plea to place yourself in the shoes of the victim is improper because it attempts to substitute irrelevant theory and empathy for fact.

This was bombshell evidence concerning the death by asphyxiation.

 

[HisArpy]

The witness testimony from the PD itself lied about whether Chauvin followed department training protocol. The assumption of criminal conduct is the whole case.

The jury believed their conduct was criminal. The question the appeals court will have to wrestle with was whether the perjured testimony was sufficiently prejudicial in itself to taint the jury to arrived at that verdict.

I don't think it is. You obviously think it's enough. That difference of opinion alone ought to tell you that it's not because there's so much other evidence to support the guilty verdict.

This was bombshell evidence concerning the death by asphyxiation.

They were found guilty of manslaughter. The basis was that they didn't do anything for the guy claiming he couldn't breathe as witnesses watched in horror and instead threatened everyone for trying to do something to prevent the death of the arrestee. The fact that the guy might have died anyway is irrelevant, the cops ACTIVELY PREVENTED any attempt at trying to save him.

To illustrate; change the scenario from drugs to a severed artery where the guy is going to die unless someone does something. The cops arrive and arrest the bleeding guy while also threatening all the witnesses to keep them from applying a tourniquet. Are the cops guilty of manslaughter even if someone blatantly and obviously lies about department policies?

The answer is obvious.

 

[icanhelp1]

The jury believed their conduct was criminal. The question the appeals court will have to wrestle with was whether the perjured testimony was sufficiently prejudicial in itself to taint the jury to arrived at that verdict.

I don't think it is. You obviously think it's enough. That difference of opinion alone ought to tell you that it's not because there's so much other evidence to support the guilty verdict.



They were found guilty of manslaughter. The basis was that they didn't do anything for the guy claiming he couldn't breathe as witnesses watched in horror and instead threatened everyone for trying to do something to prevent the death of the arrestee. The fact that the guy might have died anyway is irrelevant, the cops ACTIVELY PREVENTED any attempt at trying to save him.

To illustrate; change the scenario from drugs to a severed artery where the guy is going to die unless someone does something. The cops arrive and arrest the bleeding guy while also threatening all the witnesses to keep them from applying a tourniquet. Are the cops guilty of manslaughter even if someone blatantly and obviously lies about department policies?

The answer is obvious.

There will be no appeal, even SCOTUS refused to rule on the new evidence.

Well, I watched 4 high profile attorneys argue several points to the trial.

1. Change of venue
2. The witness that perjured was from the PD itself, lied about the take down protocol.
3. The jury was not sequestered, was exposed to mob threats and high profile politicians like Pelosi, Waters, Sharpton and several others who certainly influenced the jurors to the point of fearing for their lives.
4. New evidence on the actual cause of death.

I'll leave it at that. It's water under the bridge.