This is a special post for quick takes by ChristianKl. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
The most amazing thing about Grokipedia is that all the articles I have seen about how Grokipedia contains misinformation don't provide any examples of factually wrong statements in Grokipedia but rather examples where Grokipedia says something politically incorrect.
Which particular article are you speaking about what fact specific claim do you think is not accurate?
Also why are you using the word "responsible" here? Telling people about inconvenient truthful facts is often judged as "irresponsible". That's what I was referring to with "politically incorrect".
Grok makes statements about RFK Jr's vaccine policy like:
[...]
To me that seems like a quite neutral description. Grok explicit about earlier findings that thimerosal is safe.
Basically, you do agree that nothing here is factual inaccurate as I was saying in the beginning.
It's superficially neutral, yes, but a layman reading the article would come out with an entirely different take on RFK's vaccine policy than someone who read the Wikipedia article.
It's a key aspect of writing that you can write essays that are factually correct that make readers come to different conclusions.
The "safety" concern here being the nonexistent risk of autism, and it frames the opposing view as a corporations less worried about safety an