Talk:Grok (chatbot)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information For more information and how you can help click Show: ...
Close

Written in Rust

The sidebar says "Written in Rust" citing a primary source (https://x.ai/). Is this not contrary to Wikipedia guidelines? Do we not require a secondary source? Tadreidms (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

No, WP:PRIMARY is fine for straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. It's only when primary sources start getting promotional, contentious or potentially libelous that it becomes a problem. Belbury (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Redirect of Licence

The licence redirects to open software wikipedia page I am unable to understand is this a typo or something else , it should redirect to 'apache' wikipedia Steven Willers (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done, target should have been Apache License. Belbury (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Political views and prompt-tweaking stuff in the lead

I removed a random quote about how Musk thinks it has a "sense of humor" from the lead as undue, but after doing that I realized we're not really summarizing the bot's reception and controversies in the lead at all. Most of the coverage it has gotten focused on those things, especially on Musk's efforts to get the bot to reflect his political views more closely via tweaking the prompt and the various results of that, so perhaps we should have a paragraph summarizing those aspects in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

You said in your edit summary that the sense of humour angle doesn't get any focus in the body, but it's covered in Grok (chatbot)#Tone of responses. There's a throughline there, though, from the edgy "shove a candy cane" fun mode at launch, to the prompt explicitly being tuned to be more "politically incorrect" this month. We should avoid implying in the lead that Grok was launched as just another boring chatbot. Belbury (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
I do think there's a throughline there but I don't think it's about humor (the closest thing is the xAI quotes, which are a bit too promotional for the lead, and even they only touch on it obliquely.) And even then I feel we might be misusing the sources by focusing on less-significant parts; for example, the BBC quote focuses on Before its launch two years ago, Musk had promised an edgy, unfiltered, 'anti-woke' AI chatbot unlike competitors like OpenAI, Microsoft and Google's models and most of the rest of the section and sources are similar. I think we should avoid citing / quoting xAI directly and that the lead's summary should focus primarily on Musk's efforts to make (and brand) the AI as "anti-woke" and to generally reflect his politics, since that's where the coverage is - I'm not really seeing significant coverage calling Grok humorous. In fact, the only time humor is mentioned directly in that section is to call it "unfunny" in as many words; the overall emphasis is on it being "edgy", which in the context of the sources used means more "politically incorrect" in the sense of Musk's efforts to make it reflect his politics. --Aquillion (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

July 8, 2025 hate speech and harassments

Should we have any screenshots in this section? Trade (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I was surprised to find that Grok's MechaHitler meltdown of July 8th, which lasted until the "politically incorrect" prompt was removed, has not been mentioned in the article itself. Screenshots may remedy that curious oversight. Catherineyronwode (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Are you referring to something more specific when you say that the "MechaHitler meltdown" isn't being mentioned?
The Grok (chatbot)#July 8, 2025 hate speech and harassments section has been documenting the update in general since the story first broke, and includes the bot calling itself "MechaHitler". Belbury (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There was a WP:SNOW oppose of the first move proposal, due to longterm significance not favoring the chatbot at all. While it gets many pageviews, its name was clearly based off the longstanding word.

There was no consensus whether to move the second page, and it seems unlikely consensus will form on that anytime soon. Opposers also cited longterm significance as favoring the word, while supporters made a pure pageviews argument. (closed by non-admin page mover) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per pageviews analysis. Seungri400 (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

You're almost certainly going to get pushback based on WP:PT2. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment This was discussed last year, with the consensus being "Not moved." 162 etc. (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose on 1st move, BUT Support 2nd move. I'd say there's no primary topic between the two, but if there is, it probably isn't the neologism. Honestly, though, I think the safest bet for now would be to have a disambiguation page at the basename (and then, given it's been a year-and-a-half since that last discussion and the bot is still getting more pageviews — sometime later on, after the disambiguation page is in-place, perhaps it'll be easier to deduce whether the chatbot has become the primary topic of that name). Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Weak Support the first move, strong support the second: The neologism definitely isn't the primary topic and the chatbot probably is but its a bit of a grey are with regards to the first move. Sushidude21! (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose first move, support second move I rather see that there's no primary topic between two things between neologism or chatbot. The chatbot may not be widespread last year, but it's different this year. Alternatively, we should move "Grok" as DAB page. 120.188.5.143 (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose first move. Support second move. A disambiguation page makes sense, however I do not think the chatbot is quite the primary target yet. There may also be a risk of WP:RECENT, especially as the chatbot has been in the public spotlight a bit more in the past few weeks.
sksatsuma 15:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. The word created by Heinlein is over 60 years old, incorrect to call it a neologism, and is what this chatbot is named after, so should remain the primary topic. As described by WP:PT2, the word created by Heinlein has greater "long-term significance" and "substantially greater enduring notability" compared to the less than 2-year-old chatbot that gets WP:RECENT attention based on recent controversies. Asparagusstar (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
    >"The word created by Heinlein (...) is what this chatbot is named after"
    This is not a consideration when determining a primary topic. See WP:DPT. 162 etc. (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
    You just linked to a guideline that says "While long-term significance is a factor ..." So yes, long-term significance is a factor. Asparagusstar (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
    Long term significance is a factor. Being the original source of the name, as you suggested above, is not. See the textbook example Boston, Lincolnshire / Boston. 162 etc. (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
    Further repeating yourself is unnecessary. The word created by Heinlein being a very significant and notable part of culture for 60+ years and inspiring the name of this chatbot are among the many indicators of the long-term significance of the word as compared to the 2-year-old chatbot. If you had thought I wrote "the primary topic is always the older one," you at best misread. Again: Further repeating yourself is unnecessary. Asparagusstar (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would support moving Grok (disambiguation) to the base title and moving Grok to Grok (word). Plantdrew (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1, support 2. Since my previous nomination in January 2024, the pageviews gap between these two articles has only widened, and it is clear that the word is no longer the primary topic. There is some disagreement on whether the chatbot is primary, the best outcome is therefore to make a dabpage at Grok per WP:NOPRIMARY. Some editors are pushing back on the (neologism) disambiguation tag; no objection to Grok (word), Grok (Heinlein), or other suitable disambiguator. 162 etc. (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would support making the disambiguation page primary. IMO it is genuinely unclear which of these things someone who goes to Wikipedia looking for "Grok" is expecting or hoping to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.47.176.163 (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1st move The nominator rationale looks legit, but does not mean that the chatbot should be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It may indicate that neither of them are primary topic between the chatbot and the neologism (or word). So, the alternative page move is to making Grok as a disambiguation page (currently Grok (disambiguation)) with the chatbot and the neologism (moved as Grok (neologism)) placed at the top of the DAB page. I think no objection for move to Grok (word), at least as a redirect. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Oppose both. While Grok the chatbot may be a primary topic for now, it may not be in 50 years, especially if it ceases to exist. Grok the word, however, has been a word of enough long-term significance to have its own article predating the chatbot. ThePoggingEditor (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First paragraph

@Belbury in your edit summary, you mentioned that "The first paragraph should summarize the article". Ok so are we going to mention other controversies mentioned in this article, are we going to list the different Logos, Grok 1, Grok 2, etc. there's stuff mentioned on this article not on the first paragraph. Adding a random controversy on the first paragraph when Grok only acted up a few hours one day is why people say "Wikipedia is biased". AppleSauce443 (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of BallSniff544, see investigation)

Grok is also an ai millions of people use on a website hundreds of millions of people use. Why do we have to make the first paragraph political? You can ask grok something, millions of topics. There's already a "Controversies section". Also saying "Grok generated hate speech throughout its history" is false. It was only one time for a few hours and happened a few days ago. And the White genocide claim another editor added to the first paragraph happened with grok one month ago. Out of the hundreds of millions or billions of replies grok made, on millions of topics, why do we have to make the first paragraph political when it only happened for literally a few hours. "THE FIRST PARAGRAPH MUST SUMMARIZE THE ARTICLE" is a claim with no logic attached to it because sections of this page mention different versions of grok, other controversies, etc that's not included in the first paragraph AppleSauce443 (talk) 06:41, 11 July 2025 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of BallSniff544, see investigation)
MOS:LEAD is Wikipedia's style guide on lead sections:

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. [...] As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.

The article has a large and heavily-sourced section about this month's "politically incorrect" update, so the lead should reflect that by mentioning it. Belbury (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
We should put that in the first paragraph even though it happened like a few hours, from days ago. Ok, then put the other controversies in the first paragraph too or your argument isn't valid. Put back the White genocide controversy in the first paragraph that happened a month ago, put how grok made rape threats and attacked individuals, if not, it's safe to say Wikipedia is biased. AppleSauce443 (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of BallSniff544, see investigation)
I agree with Belbury that the lead section better summarizes the article by mentioning the prominent controversies and that this is supported by wikipedia consensus best practices. The support of white genocide conspiracy theories and the rape threats are broadly covered under the current version of the lead section, where it mentions "attacks on individuals related to hate speech." I would also be fine with the lead more specifically including the phrases "white genocide conspiracy theories" and "rape threats." Asparagusstar (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Instead of listing every controversy in the lead, could potentially change to something like "The bot has generated various controversial responses in its history, frequently related to changes in its system prompts." Onyxqk (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
It might also be worth including in the lead that the bot is intended to be relatively uncensored, which contributes to controversial responses. Onyxqk (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
The MOS:LEAD extract above says to summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The "politically incorrect" update currently takes up about a quarter of the article text, which suggests that Wikipedia (at least for now) considers it to be a prominent part of the bot's history. Belbury (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
something that happened for like 3 hours, days ago at this point, isn't a prominent part of the bot's history AppleSauce443 (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of BallSniff544, see investigation)
Wikipedia goes by WP:PROPORTION of coverage in sources rather than how many hours something happened for. If you think that the controversy is being given too much weight the article body, you're welcome to make that case, but while it takes up a full quarter of the Wikipedia article, it should at least be mentioned specifically in that article's lead. Belbury (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
I suppose one issue is that the lead should probably be about twice as long as it is now to adequately summarise the entire article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Saying that Grok "...has generated various controversial responses in its history" is insulting to readers, and is far too ambiguous. The article, and many reliable sources, go into great detail about why this was controversial. Grok isn't saying 'pineapple doesn't belong on pizza' or arguing against the Oxford comma. Figure out a way to summarize sources without cagey PR or euphemistic vagueness. Grayfell (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
    grok has generated millions of replies to Twitter users in dozens of languages and has existed for three years. Saying "Grok engaged in hate speech" for an English-language incident that happened dags ago, only for a few hours that day, only a few messages, is ridiculous. There's other Controversies that have been significantly covered too, by the logic you're using we have to list every controversy in the first paragraph that's listed in the controversy section. This incident that happened for a few hours, almost a week ago now, throughout it's three year history, isn't worthy for the first paragraph. It's not like Grok killed somebody. The news coverage is also dying down too, just like the news coverage for past controversies. AppleSauce443 (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)(Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of BallSniff544, see investigation)
    You are free to write a proposed 2 paragraph version of the lead (say, between 200 and 400 words) and chuck it here for people to take a gander at. I'd do it myself but I'm not actually particularly interested in that level of time commitment for this topic right now. (I might find the hours a few months from now, but given my rather poor track record I'm afraid I'm equally likely to forget about it and leave it for multiple years) Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter how many replies Grok has generated. What matters is reliable sources. Reliable sources have documented multiple periods when Grok has produced explicit and offensive material, not just the one a week ago. Even for that most recent one, news coverage is still ongoing, which demonstrates that this has lasting encyclopedic significance. We're not here to do PR for Musk, we're here to explain to readers what happened. The best way to do that is to plainly summarize WP:IS. Grayfell (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you, Greyfell. I agree 100% and thank you for writing this out so clearly. The fact that the MechaHitler incident is not named in the article is disturbing to me as it is all over the internet right now (July 19th, 2025) and i actually came here to Wikipedia to get the detailed story and found ... the sounds of silence. Catherineyronwode (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
    The antisemitism/MechaHitler update has been described in detail in the article body here since the news first broke, there's just been some disagreement (mostly from a blocked account using a sockpuppet) on how and whether to mention it in the lead. Belbury (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
  • Since related things have come up again in the lead... I don't think promptfoo's blog is a WP:RS, certainly not one we could weigh equally to sources like the NYT or NBC, which have documented a right-leaning shift. And given the broad high-quality coverage, it ought to be in the lead; Musk's efforts to tinker with its political bias is one of the things that Grok is most well-known for. --Aquillion (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Grokipedia

In this section, someone has written (paraphrasing), ‘Gizmodo has compared Grokipedia to the 2006 Conservapedia [which no one has heard of because it failed]’, which is hilarious cope — and exactly the reason why a Grokipedia is not only necessary but inevitable. Either build your own AI adjudicator or start thinking about a new hobby. The (online) world has become so full of misinformation/lies, the race now is for actual truth rather than control+narrative. China is going down. 2A0D:3344:1D0:2708:E1D6:B5C3:7E39:F288 (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The only non-factual element of your "paraphrase" is the commentary you added yourself in brackets. Please stick to the article contents. Talk pages are not forums. StereoFolic (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 18 October 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. CoconutOctopus talk 18:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Grok (chatbot) → Grok (xAI)Grok (xAI) – The current title is outdated and overly narrow, reflecting only the project's 2023 launch as a conversational AI on X, while failing to capture its 2025 evolution into a comprehensive multimodal platform powering xAI's ecosystem (e.g., Grok 4 reasoning engine, API integrations, Grokipedia, and Tesla/X features). Per WP:COMMONNAME, the most recognizable and precise name in reliable sources (e.g., xAI announcements, tech media) is "Grok" tied directly to its developer, xAI, emphasizing its branded identity as an xAI product rather than a generic tool. This avoids recency bias WP:RECENTISM by focusing on enduring branding over initial function, while maintaining disambiguation from Heinlein's "Grok" (primary topic at plain "Grok").
Precedent: Analogous to the recent move of "Gemini (chatbot)" to "Google Gemini" (closed Sep 17, 2025), which shifted from a functional descriptor to developer-inclusive branding for Google's AI suite, recognizing its growth beyond chat interfaces. Similar patterns include "ChatGPT" (no disambiguator needed due to primacy) and "Claude (language model)" for Anthropic's offerings, prioritizing developer association under WP:SOFTWARE.
Policy Alignment:
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: xAI's Grok dominates modern "Grok" searches/pageviews (surpassing the neologism since early 2025), warranting a title that reflects its notability without diluting the historical term.
WP:DAB: "(xAI)" provides natural, non-descriptive disambiguation, improving accessibility (WP:AT) over the anachronistic "(chatbot)."
WP:PRECISION: Ensures the title scopes to the xAI entity, accommodating expansions like Grok 5 AGI without future renames. This move enhances neutrality and usability; oppose if it risks ambiguity with other xAI tools (none currently). Ronnotel (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 09:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Support: I agree, "chatbot" is not a good descriptor for this family of models that has many more applications than chatbots. My only hesitation here is that "xAI" might not be well known enough to disambiguate to the average user, but I can't think of a better alternative. "Grok (AI model)" or "Grok (AI model family)" both seem unwieldy. StereoFolic (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
What about just "Grok (AI)"? Snowman304|talk 23:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
"Grok (AI)" could be confused with Grokking (machine learning). I think "Grok (AI model)" is probably the best alternative to "Grok (xAI)". StereoFolic (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Another difficulty with "Grok (AI model)" is that Grok (like all named frontier models), is not actually a single model, but a family of models. This terminology wart appears in many other articles, like Claude (language model), GPT-5, Kimi (chatbot), and Llama (language model). StereoFolic (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support: I believe that the page should be moved, but rather than moving it to Grok (xAI), I believe it should be either like Grok (language model) or Grok (AI model). The terminology of "language model" is consistent with other pages like Claude, Llama, and Gemini.
But I think Grok(AI model) is more appropriate as with the advent of multimodal models, we've seen that they can now generate not just text, but also images, videos, and audio. So, defining them merely as language models feels too limited. TricanaQ (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Many media reports refer to Grok as a chatbot even when discussing its integration into Musk's other businesses. Sources often distinguish between the company (xAI), the main consumer-facing end product (Grok, described as a chatbot), and the underlying models (e.g., Grok 4). Our article currently reflects this. There is sometimes ambiguity or perhaps just sloppy writing in sources, where it is not clear whether they are referring to the "chatbot" or the underlying model but "chatbot" is the most common descriptor I find. "Chatbot" is likely much more recognizable, and natural* in that sense, to a general audience than the company name, xAI, although the company's name does provide a context clue. The examples shared by the nominator and others show variability in how these are disambiguated but the company name is uncommon. Google Gemini is an outlier, with Google being one of the most well-known companies in the world. (*Neither '(xAI)' nor '(chatbot)' actually provide natural disambiguation. By definition these are both parenthetical disambiguation.) —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 01:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
    Also oppose (language model), (AI model), and other descriptors at this time. The underlying model and spinoff projects can be discussed as closely related topics per Aquillion's comments below, as the article and external sources currently do. Any significantly divergent coverage could be added to xAI (company) as appropriate. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 21:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose Grok (xAI) nothing else in Category:Large language models is disambiguated by the company. Gemini's two articles, Gemini (language model) and Google Gemini, are split between the two aspects, model and product, which could happen here, potentially. So weak oppose move to (language model) since the article currently seems more focused on the chatbot product. Skynxnex (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose use of a company name per WP:NCDAB, which recommends the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible) that includes the topic. "(AI model)" or "(language model)" would work. --Belbury (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposed per Belbury, also support their alternatives if a move is needed. DankJae 12:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose; it's referred to as a chatbot in coverage, and in general that's a more clear distinguisher than the company name. I also have concerns that the rename and the given rationale could end up being promotional in tone; none of the spin-offs have attracted significant attention or focus yet, nor has xAI itself gotten much attention relative to Grok as a chatbot. Coverage overwhelmingly focuses on it as the X/Twitter Chatbot, so our article title should reflect that, with other things mentioned only as spinoffs from the chatbot. Obviously if some of those other things take off and become major focuses of sustained coverage we could reconsider this (or just spin them off onto their own article), but there's no reason to do so now. --Aquillion (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think chatbot still makes the most sense because that's still the most commonly used work for what Grok is online and offline. Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose We shouldn't change the article title to one that makes less sense. Using a company name goes against the tenor of WP:NCDAB, and using this particular company name looks like somebody was desperately trying to use all the letters in their Scrabble hand. Moreover, Aquillion's analysis of the coverage focus sounds correct to me. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
    In reply to the relisting comment: I don't see a case for changing to another parenthetical descriptor. The article should be named for what the product is, not for the software infrastructure under its hood. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Clear opposition to the (xAI) disambiguator, but is there consensus to move to a different one, e.g. (AI model) or (language model) as proposed alternatives? SmittenGalaxy | talk! 09:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others, also nom's 'policy alignment' makes no sense and doesn't appear to be grounded in policy—blindlynx 14:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose As others have stated, "chatbot" is how reliable sources describe this. A BBC article from August 2025: "Hundreds of thousands of user conversations with Elon Musk's artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot have been exposed ..." New York Times in September 2025: " Elon Musk has said Grok, the A.I.-powered chatbot that his company developed ..." Asparagusstar (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Support per Gemini and other models, chatbot seems like a misnomer. IndrasBet (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Strongly oppose Grok and xAI are already two separate articles, like Gemini (chatbot) and Google are separate. If you want to merge Grok into xAI, bring that up on the talk page.
This move makes as much sense as renaming the Wikipedia page "Wikipedia (Wikimedia)" OmegaAOL (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per everyone who opposed. 69 (i crave violence :D) 14:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

grokipedia.fun

User:1timeuse75 added a screenshot of this broken website to the article reasoning that it was the first result for "grokipedia" so i thought it the official one.

1timeuse75 cites this Chenab Times article as confirmation that it's the official site (As of now, the site at grokipedia.fun serves as a placeholder for contributions, though full launch remains pending due to rigorous quality assurance), but the Chenab Times article opens with an AI-generated comparison of the three "encclopepia" logos (where the Wikipedia one is missing most of its jigsaw letters) and may well have been written entirely by AI, so I don't think we can rely on it. I can't find any reliable sources or official statements from xAI that grokipedia.fun is the project's official URL.

I think this is just one of several domain squatters who quickly reacted to Musk's announcement, given that Grokipedia sounds like it might be a website, but Musk didn't announce a URL for it. If you ask a search engine for grokipedia website there are bunch of cheap TLD domains like this in the first page of results. Belbury (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The Washington Post fell for the domain squatter. 1timeuse75 (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Suggested move Grok (language model)

I'd suggest renaming or if you prefer moving this page to be disambiguated as a Grok (language model) rather than (chatbot). Or perhaps like Gemini (see later in my comment) the page should be split with the more general language model content moved to the (language model) version of the page & this focused on things about the chatbot in particular. I think the first makes more sense like with Claude. Anthropic's Claude (language model) is what Claude (chatbot) redirects to. Meta's LLaMa is LLaMa (language model), Google's Gemini is at Gemini (language model) though there is a Gemini (chatbot) article as well. I see the two prior move discussions on this page but one seemed to be a push to make it the primary page, which I agree is unwarranted. The other was to move it to Grok (xAI) which doesn't match these other examples or any other I'm aware of. However much discussion of it compares it to the examples noted above & others regarding things that aren't just being a chatbot such as coding and benchmark performance especially as all these models are increasingly multimodal. ex. . Given the prior discussions I'll just leave this as a suggestion for others to consider. Phil (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Split proposed

The following is a closed discussion of a requested split. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: split. Casspedia (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Proposing splitting the Grok (chatbot)#Sexual deepfake and illegal content generation on X section into its own article, Grok sexual deepfake scandal or something similarly titled, given the sheer amplitude and international coverage surrounding said scandal; said section is starting to get fairly big, and given the daily updates and international reactions differing by country (which would inevitably render the present article too big), deserves its own article. Casspedia (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

support - it's only going to get bigger. Joe (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
support - although the news has slowed down on this, there's a lot of background and analysis missing in the current article which would be overly detailed if we added it. StereoFolic (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
support - As several investigations are still ongoing, we can expect many more details to emerge. For example, today, 35 state Attorneys General in US published a new open letter to xAI about this issue (ref. The State-Led Crackdown on Grok and xAI Has Begun | WIRED). Since the current description is written linearly, organizing it into a standalone article with dedicated sections (like "History" and "International responses") would improve readability and help readers better understand this developing situation.
We can add another paragraph by writing about this letter. Also, the letter itself includes 19 citations and we can use it to enhance the article more. TAKAHASHI Shuuji🌈 (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
support - the section is already notable enough to have a separate article. E6973836 (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
support per Shuuji NorthernWinds (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
17 days have passed since this proposal was made, and there's no objection so far, so I think we can proceed to split this section into a new page. I'm not familiar with the page splitting procedure on English Wikipedia, so I'd appreciate it if someone could proceed with the editing work.
There's already two major updates from UK and Spain related to this topic:
TAKAHASHI Shuuji🌈 (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
strong support per nom. The article on Grok itself could be about the chatbot itself, while the split article about its controversies would be a huge article on its own. This is what happened with Twitter under Elon Musk being split from Twitter (now X). SeaHaircutSoilReplace 17:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Green tickY Consensus achieved: I'll work on starting an article in the next few days. Casspedia (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
In the meantime, draft created at Draft:Grok sexual deepfake scandal. Casspedia (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Split complete. Article is now at Grok sexual deepfake scandal. Consequentially, the section in the present article has been trimmed down to one paragraph (-21,000 bytes!). Casspedia (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested Move @Twitter

You are invited to join the discussions at Talk:Twitter § Requested move 9 February 2026. Some1 (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

This is article is very biased

The title says all that needs to be said really. I guess the advent of grokipedia has ruffled some feathers. ~2026-16923-45 (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Nearly all of this article's content pre-dates Grokipedia's launch. If you don't have any specific feedback about it, there's not much we can do with that. Belbury (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI