> The perception of bias in Wikipedia remains,

If there's a perception of bias, where is it coming from? It's clearly perception born from extreme political bias of the performers. Addressing that sort of perception by changing the content means increasing bias.

Therefore the only logical route forward to hash out incidences of perceived bias and addressing them to expose them as the bias themselves.

I fail to imagine how putting Wikipedia in the hands of an ideologically captured mega-billionaire will help the fight against bias. The owner of Grokipedia has shown times and times again that he has no regards for truth, and likes to advertise the many false things he believes in.

The technology behind it doesn't matter. Show me the incentives and I'll tell you the results: Wikipedia is decentralized, Grokipedia has a single owner.

Is there some objective standard for what is biased? For many people (including Elon Musk) biased just means something that they disagree with.

When grok says something factual that Elon doesn't like, he puts his thumb on the scale and changes how grok responds (see the whole South African white 'genocide' business). So why should we trust that an LLM will objectively detect bias, when the people in charge of training that LLM prefer that it regurgitate their preferred story, rather than what is objectively true?