Well, they use AI to create "content". So I guess it's fair to use AI to read it.
This is what Claude says about "Grokipedia"'s article about the Gaza war, compared to the original:
Major Differences Between Wikipedia and Grokipedia's Gaza War Articles
1. Framing and Perspective
Wikipedia: Presents the conflict with multiple perspectives, acknowledging disputed narratives. Uses neutral language like "armed conflict" and presents genocide allegations as claims made by "many human rights organizations and scholars."
Grokipedia: Frames the conflict almost entirely from an Israeli perspective. Hamas is consistently portrayed as the aggressor and sole source of civilian suffering, with Israeli actions defended as necessary self-defense.
2. Casualty Figures and Reporting
Wikipedia: Reports over 79,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza as reported figures, noting they come from the Gaza Health Ministry but presenting them as the available data.
Grokipedia: Systematically questions and undermines Palestinian casualty figures, dedicating entire sections to "Verification Challenges and Inflated Figures" and "Combatants Versus Civilians." It emphasizes that figures are "Hamas-administered" and suggests deliberate fabrication, claiming the ministry has "incentives for propagandistic reporting."
3. Treatment of Genocide Allegations
Wikipedia: States that "many human rights organizations and scholars of genocide studies and international law, including an independent UN commission, say that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, though some dispute this".
Grokipedia: Dismisses genocide allegations as part of "double standards in scrutiny" and frames them as politically motivated attacks on Israel's legitimate self-defense. The word "genocide" appears primarily in sections criticizing those who make such claims.
4. Hamas's Responsibility for Civilian Harm
Wikipedia: Mentions Hamas's use of civilian infrastructure but doesn't make it the primary explanation for Palestinian casualties.
Grokipedia: Contains extensive sections titled "Impact of Hamas Tactics on Civilian Suffering" arguing that Hamas's embedding of military assets in civilian areas is the primary cause of Palestinian civilian deaths, stating "Hamas's operational choices to a disproportionate share of Palestinian suffering, independent of Israeli response intensity."
5. Aid and Humanitarian Crisis
Wikipedia: Describes Israel's blockade cutting off necessities and causing famine, with Israel's actions as a key factor.
Grokipedia: Features a section on "Aid Distribution Failures and Diversion by Hamas," emphasizing that "Hamas diverts up to 25% of incoming aid supplies" and that aid failures stem primarily from Hamas's control and diversion rather than Israeli restrictions.
6. Language and Terminology
Wikipedia: Uses terms like "Israeli invasion," "Israeli offensive," and "Israeli strikes" in a descriptive manner.
Grokipedia: Uses emotionally charged language like Hamas's "systematic atrocities," "barbarism," and describes October 7 as involving "mass killings, sexual violence, and arson" while Israeli actions are described as "targeted operations," "precision strikes," and "necessary self-defense."
7. International Law and War Crimes
Wikipedia: Notes that "experts and human rights organizations have stated that Israel and Hamas have committed war crimes", treating both sides' alleged violations seriously.
Grokipedia: Has separate sections for "Hamas Violations" and "Israeli Actions Under International Law," with the Hamas section focusing on terrorism and war crimes, while the Israeli section emphasizes legal justification, proportionality, and compliance efforts. It includes a section on "Investigations and Double Standards in Scrutiny" arguing Israel faces biased treatment.
8. Historical Context
Wikipedia: Provides context about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the occupation, and blockade as contributing factors.
Grokipedia: Emphasizes Hamas's ideology, its 1988 charter calling for Israel's destruction, and its "rejectionism" as the primary context, with a section on "Hamas's October 7, 2023 Attack" prominently featuring "Atrocities and Hostage Abductions" with graphic details.
9. Verification and Sources
Wikipedia: Generally presents available information with citations, acknowledging when sources are disputed.
Grokipedia: Systematically questions sources that reflect negatively on Israel (especially UN and Gaza Health Ministry data) while presenting Israeli military assessments as reliable. It includes phrases like "Hamas-controlled" and "unverified" repeatedly when discussing Palestinian sources.
10. Overall Narrative
Wikipedia: Attempts to present the conflict as complex with legitimate grievances and wrongdoing on multiple sides.
Grokipedia: Presents a clear narrative of Israeli victimhood and justified response to Hamas terrorism, with Palestinian civilian suffering primarily attributed to Hamas's tactics rather than Israeli military operations.
Conclusion
The Grokipedia article reads as an explicitly pro-Israel advocacy piece rather than an encyclopedia article. It systematically frames Israeli actions in the most favorable light while questioning, undermining, or recontextualizing information that might reflect negatively on Israel. This represents a fundamental departure from Wikipedia's attempt at neutral point of view, confirming the concerns about Grokipedia presenting topics aligned with Elon Musk's political positions.
With fewer friends the super power ends up simply being a power. A more volatile world.
Brilliant minds thought up the Marshall plan. It secured the world. Nothing less! The world.
Did it come with a price? Yes. But what the protectionist do not get today as they dismantle the system is that is might actually have been cheaper than the alternative while remaining the leader.
Those who think that governments should be run as a business are delusional. They think we buy F35 because they are the best. The sales proves it! They will never realize that SAAB had better and more fitting options for us. They will never understand that we did pay some protection money. It is not a simple Luca Brasi situation. It is more subtle.
Ou friend is gone so we will try to do that. We have to. Now you understand that might not actually be to your advantage.
The Marshall Plan was brilliant, but it's pretty terrible that it was ever necessary in the first place. Americans don't really want to be the world's bodyguard. Don't get me wrong, we like to be #1, but our original default position was neutrality when it comes to foreign conflicts. We hesitated to even enter World War II. It wasn't our war, it wasn't Europe's first conflict and it was unlikely to be its last.
The arrangements made after WWII came at a time when U.S. was over 40% of the global GDP. That's no longer the case. Now, globalism has gutted our own labor market, and many formerly proud manufacturing hubs in the U.S. are saddled with methamphetamine and fentanyl problems. Our veterans have a very high incidence of suicide, and we have a lot of them, because we have had to maintain a large military for a century. Unchecked immigration has diluted national cohesion and inflamed tensions domestically (and from what I understand, Europe's got its own internal tensions with this problem). The world as it existed in 1948 no longer exists.
Sorry you think the SAAB is better than the F35. It's really not, and lacks the same thrust, payload, stealth, etc but it's a perfectly good jet. That being said, I don't think fighter jets are going to win 21st century warfare. Drone tech is likely to be the deciding factor.
You realize that if relations really broke down to that level, then most likely NATO would simply exclude the USA, it wouldn't be all of the other NATO members leaving it, right? Also, if it gets to the level that the EU / Europe would feel they no longer want a military alliance with the USA, then it's likely that they wouldn't want to counter just Russian and Chinese influence, but US influence as well - there's nothing inherently better about US influence than the other two (Chinese influence so far has been the least bad outside of China itself, out of the three, by far - though I have no delusion that this will continue as China's power grows).
"Danish broadcaster DR reported that at least three U.S. citizens linked to the U.S. government were involved in activities that, reportedly, authorities fear could be used covertly to support Trump’s desire to make Greenland part of the United States."
I don't know where to start with this, there is so much space here you could drive a country through it. So citizens (not government officials) "linked", what does that mean? What activities exactly? "Fear could be" again, what does this mean, people are fearful, over what? People are afraid all the time.
The story can also be considered on-topic because it shows how the USA is increasingly becoming a bad place to start a business.
When foreign talent can be snatched by masked secret police at any time and the rule of law is increasingly ignored, it hardly creates a favorable business environment.
In the US? Wasn't the whole thing that you could say what you wanted without fear in the US?
I understand that people say these things about Saudi Arabië and China and wherever else, but all my life the selling point of the US has been that it's the land of the free.
Please tear down the Statue of Liberty because it's an absolute embarrassment at this point. It's like the D in DPRK now.
Immigrants still have many constitutional rights - they’re rushing people out of the country to avoid court cases they know they’ll lose – but even if that wasn’t true, in a constitutional democracy that has to follow a legal process.
One of the big questions is how you define “activism”. She appears to have been targeted for supporting democratic initiatives by her fellow students based on the belief that killing civilians is wrong. Once you’re at that point, people could get in trouble for many innocuous beliefs, which suggests that people should hesitate to come here if anything they build can be taken away by Dear Leader without warning or legal process.
Do you seriously believe the punishment here matches the "crime" of writing an article? I don't even see the problem with it. You want people to come and better your country, or do you want them to be docile slaves? And who even decides what counts as activism? If I write an article about wanting my campus to serve better food, should I be deported?
But you're anyways missing the point: If you can't be yourself, stand up for your values and live freely, you will not move to a country. This is the US now, and because of that the US will lose out on great talent, people will be apprehensive of starting businesses, study or otherwise in the US.
This is common knowledge when you visit authoritarian regimes, such as North Korea or Russia, but it's completely fine when you visit well developed democracies.
The US can no longer be considered as such, and you're fine with that?
It's not empty. It often happens that you don't notice things that you've seen all your life. It's only when you go somewhere that you notice the difference.
Are you pretending that projecting power across the Atlantic was not something done by the US to protect its own interests? You think US kept bases in Europe out of goodness?
I am not sure if you are naive or just plain dumb.
To be frank, I love that the US decided to sacrifice its own power, forcing Europe to prop up its own defense industry instead of giving money to the US so it would strengthen itself first and foremost
you are talking about something else now. I responded to "we did it already" . afaik europe is still heavily dependent on usa and nothing actually has changed.
can you stay on topic and not resort to personal insults.
I think you just don't understand how international relations work. The US wanted those bases in Europe for its own interests.
And you might not be aware, but the EU just announced a hefty package to rearm itself. I wouldn't be surprised if in the comings months the US is out of NATO and those US bases in Europe are shut down.
And it is not really an insult, I still wonder if you are naive or dumb. I am friends with some very dumb people, it's not a character fault.
It's even worse when you remember how Europeans kept criticizing the USA with the example of "European Socialism" and all the good they do for their people whilst America "doesn't have free healthcare" etc. The free-ride is unfortunately over, and they'll have to pony up for not just their own people and their security, but for the concept of "Europe" that the EU monarchs are so attached to and can't let go of.
That is, until the eastern-european countries realize who they're more aligned to culturally at this point, and start leaving one by one.
Most European countries have proportional elections, at least for some levels of the government. Such elections give a pretty good idea of the popular support for various ideologies. On the average, parties that are broadly aligned with US Republicans get ~25% of the votes, though there is a lot of variation from country to country.
>Share of respondents who said Trump would be good or bad for their country..
No no, that is not what is being said here. To match with it, the poll should ask if they would like someone like Trump to be their leader, not if Trump in US would be bad for their country.
