What does "challenged Wikipedia so thoroughly" mean?

(My impression is that Grokipedia was announced, everyone looked it and laughed because it was so obviously basically taking content from Wikipedia and making it worse, and since then it's largely been forgotten. But I haven't followed it closely and maybe that's all wrong.)

This whole thread reeks of Grok astro and challenging Wikipedia. There are fair criticisms of Wikipedia, but I am smelling something fishy.

> It's remarkable that Grokipedia has challenged Wikipedia so thoroughly, at only 80 days old with 25 years of Wikipedia.

No?? In what world do you live?

Using Grokipedia would literally be asking for partisan propaganda, Musk doesn't even hide it

This comment is the first time that I have heard about Grokipedia.

> the persistent editorial and corporate bias and intellectual dishonesty

Musk is explicitly partisan and has repeatedly manipulated Grok's output to suit his agenda. How could you possibly consider Grok a worthwhile alternative if you take issue with intellectual dishonesty and corporate bias?

Has it? I think to challenge you have to show some comparable usage numbers. Its certainly an impressive technical feat to have this AI-based wiki project, but does anyone actually use it?

I mean that genuinely. I don't know any usage numbers for Grok. Is it even 1% of Wiki? Is it 50%? Is it more?

Grokipedia is impressive. All edits to the original Wikipedia article are shown, along with source links for the edit. All anyone has to do is to look at a wikipedia article and the Grokipedia article side by side to see that Grok is usually able to make significant improvements to articles, adding important context, improving explanations and removing bias. Don't knock it 'til you've tried it. If you haven't tried it because of a hatred of Elon Musk... well... who's the biased one?

There is nothing impressive about an AI slop Wikipedia rewrite by a radicalized eccentric billionaire.