Ashley Rinsberg, editor-in-chief of NPOVneutralPOV.com and author of The Gray Lady Winked, exposes how Wikipedia’s 2017 shift—backed by Hillary Clinton’s aides like Catherine Maher and funded via a $100M Tides Foundation endowment—embedded GASP (progressive) bias, from fringe LGBTQ claims about Jesus to whitewashing Iranian abuses. Pro-Hamas editors and CCP supporters now dictate content while conservative sources are flagged as unreliable, distorting AI like ChatGPT trained on its data. Alternatives like Grok’s Grackopedia and Justopedia, launched by banned editor Betty Wills, offer counterpoints, but systemic bias persists unless diverse training data is prioritized. [Automatically generated summary]
All annual memberships are 50% off, and this year you get more than ever.
More new daily shows from the most trusted voices in conservative media.
Uncensored, ad-free, available an hour before you can see or hear them anywhere else.
Daily Wire Plus is premium entertainment built to compete with the best that's out there.
Epic production, cinematic storytelling.
Every project crafted with major studio precision, but grounded in truth, not trend.
That standard comes to life with the Penn Dragon cycle, The Rise of the Merlin.
The seven-part cinematic epic premieres January 22nd, 2026, exclusively on Daily Wire Plus.
All access members get early access to episodes one and two on Christmas Day.
Your annual membership for 50% off gets you full access to everything else we're building next.
The Cyber Week sale ends Monday, December 8th.
When it's gone, it's gone.
Go to dailywire.com/slash subscribe and join right now.
That was used to justify the claim, one of the claims, that Trump is an authoritarian and a fascist.
So we have a fire alarm here.
But well, you're right.
Maybe I said the wrong thing about New York Times and Wikipedia.
But hey, everyone, it's Andrew Clavin with this week's interview with Ashley Rinsburg.
Many of you I know are at home asking yourself the question: is Jesus gay?
And of course, the answer is if you read the Gospels, absolutely not.
But if you read Wikipedia, it's not as clear.
We are in, as I have said a million times, an information crisis.
Our elites lie like bandits, and it's hard to know who else to trust when everybody's talking at once.
And one of the tricks I found is to follow reporters who get things right and who aren't scared.
Ashley Rinsberg is editor and chief investigative officer at NPOVneutralPOV.com.
And he's the author of The Gray Lady Wink.
That's what the last time we talked to him was when that book came out.
That's about how the New York Times misreporting distortions and fabrications radically alter history.
No publisher would publish that book because they were afraid of getting on the bad side of the New York Times, but it's a terrific book if you've never read it.
And when he brought it out himself, it sold very, very well.
And now he is looking into what is happening at Wikipedia.
And I've been reading his stuff and you've got to hear this stuff.
Ashley, it's good to see you again.
How are you doing?
Great, Andrew.
Thanks again for having me back.
No, it's fun.
It's a pleasure.
It's a pleasure.
So let me start with this.
How did you get onto the Wikipedia story?
Did you stumble on this?
How did you figure this out?
I was just doing some reporting for Pirate Wires at the time where I was freelancing and kind of poking around for a story.
A friend of mine, a colleague named David Rosato, is a machine learning researcher, does sort of like social science style research, but backed up by data.
And he started looking at Wikipedia bias from a data point of view.
And he looked at the way that American politicians, Supreme Court justices, even journalists are spoken about on Wikipedia.
And it was really, really clear.
So if you are on the right of American politics, the negative sentiment was higher.
And if you were on the left in American politics, so any of these topics are like Democrats, the positive was much more, the sentiment was much more positive.
So the bias was something he was able to show statistically.
And that was really eye-opening to me because it's one thing to talk about anecdotally to talk about this stuff and even just to report on single topics.
But he was really showing this scattershot of bias on Wikipedia.
And that really got me interested in the question of how does the bias work on Wikipedia?
Why is it there?
How extensive is it?
And I started doing some digging and I haven't actually stopped digging.
Yeah.
I mean, when you describe it, the articles you're describing, it made what would have been, if I had hair, it would have stood on end.
And let me ask, is this a change?
Has it always been like this?
Or did it actually turn?
I think there were elements of this.
There were seeds of this type of thing.
Because Wikipedia has always been something that was manned.
The volunteers always tended to be generally more progressive and academic.
It's what Larry Sanger, the co-founder, calls the GASP worldview, which is global, academic, secular, and progressive.
And that's always been the case.
But around 2017, something started to shift at Wikipedia, at Wikimedia Foundation more specifically, which owns and operates the site.
And that's when they started to redefine the mission of Wikipedia from building an online encyclopedia to creating a social justice movement around Wikipedia that was inspired by DEI and driven by DEI principles, and that informed a lot of what they were doing on the site as well.
So that was a really profound shift.
It was something that Hillary Clinton aides were involved in precipitating and driving to a significant extent.
And this was right after Hillary Clinton declares a fake news epidemic in Congress, thinking, you know, she couldn't have possibly lost because voters knew what they were talking about and knew what they were reading.
It had to be that they were misinformed.
They were being served disinformation by Russia.
And Wikipedia sort of steps into the fray as becoming what the Wikimedia Foundation calls the global knowledge infrastructure, sort of connecting the mainstream media to the rest of the internet in order to get a control over the so-called wild west of information online.
Yeah.
I mean, this has been a concerted effort.
You know, Barack Obama made speeches.
He's still making speeches about it.
He's saying we're going to have to get some government control over the press in keeping with the Constitution, which says no government control over the press.
So they've been doing this kind of in concert.
When you say Hillary Clinton's aides, I mean, was this something, did they have to go in there and say, we want you to do this?
Did they have to bring in money?
Or did they just go in and make suggestions?
Or what was the connection?
In 2016, as Hillary Clinton's undergoing her own crisis, losing the election to Donald Trump, Wikimedia Foundation also underwent a crisis when its executive director was forced out.
There was a scandal at the organization.
The woman who stepped into her shoes is Catherine Maher, who we've all seen clips of her saying insane things about the truth.
Right.
Now is CEO of NPR.
She becomes executive director of Wikimedia Foundation.
The first thing she does is orders a PR audit.
She wants to understand how the brand is seen by the public and by decision makers.
The individual who is tapped to lead that audit is Craig Manassian, who is the PR agency, or at the time was the PR agency for Wikimedia.
And at the very same time, Manassium served as CMO for Clinton Global Initiative.
So the direct employees one of the most important employees of the Clinton Global Initiative.
And he recommends that they lean into this notion of open, this open knowledge.
And this is a buzz.
The term open, it sounds kind of neutral, but it's really something that's drawn from the world of Soros.
And Catherine Maher herself is a longtime Soros acolyte.
She's never hidden that fact.
She's quite proud of it, which is fine.
But when it came time to implementing a new strategy, they didn't choose McKinsey or Deloitte or the obvious kind of go-to type strategy and consulting agencies that exist around the world for a big foundation like Wikimedia.
They chose this random shop.
It's like a three-person shop in Montana that is led by a woman named Whitney Williams.
And you think, why her?
It just makes no sense.
Turns out She was a senior aide to Hillary Clinton when Hillary was in the White House as first lady and was also a extremely powerful Democratic player and operative who ran for the governor of Montana.
And this is the person that is chosen to implement this strategy as well.
So you have this direct line into Clinton, Hillary Clinton land.
And right after that as well, you start seeing this influx of Soros figures, figures from the world of George Soros's Open Society Foundations, his longtime general counsel becomes general counsel, Wikimedia, all the stuff's going on at the same time that they're precipitating this massive shift, this real transformation at Wikimedia Foundation.
Wikipedia's Notable Problem00:07:13
So I started this by saying, is Jesus gay?
Which I'm sure many in my audience are still lying on the floor, clutching their throats and choking.
But I brought this up because one of your articles is about this.
And it's appalling.
I mean, it's just, can you run through some of the things that they're putting up online and the numerical relationship of that kind of content as opposed to say good gospel, you know, here's what Jesus said and did content.
This is something that I really just stumbled across.
I wasn't particularly looking for it.
I'm not even sure how I got to the article, but I think it was maybe the article on Jesus, the main article, where there's a section on Jesus' sexuality.
And there's a separate article on the section called The Sexuality of Jesus Christ or something along those lines, which, you know, the marital status, which maybe could be something legitimate if you're exploring like what if you want to know.
And if you don't know about Christianity, you wanted to understand more about was Jesus married or not, what worked there.
But what actually you see in these entries to a very prominent extent are claims that Jesus was gay, which I'm not a Christian, but I found that shocking and offensive.
And if it was once, maybe it could be like, well, okay.
I mean, that's not really very seemly, but I could see it getting in there.
But it's not once.
It's across numerous articles.
And one thing that I've always noticed with a narrative construction on Wikipedia is the way they do it is they create a network of articles.
So it's never just one mention in one article.
For example, when they try to create this notion that Donald Trump is a fascist or an authoritarian, it's not that they just say it once.
It's that they create a bunch of new articles.
They push the claim.
They use verbatim language across the articles.
And you get to this point where it's just everywhere.
And that's kind of what we see with the so-called Jesus' gay narrative that's out there on Wikipedia.
So you have a list of works.
This is its own entry, list of works that portray Jesus as LGBTQ.
You have just a single entry that's dedicated to a play that depicts Jesus in like obscene acts, like stuff that really, really, you wouldn't expect to be there.
But also with Wikipedia, the way that it works is that any entry is supposed to meet a threshold of what they call notability.
If it's not notable, if it's not significant, it doesn't deserve to be an encyclopedia.
This is, after all, it's not just a random blog.
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia.
And you see articles get taken down every single day because they don't meet that notability threshold.
And this is sometimes actually people who are very important.
I know a journalist in the UK who's like a high-profile journalist who they removed his article.
It's you're not notable.
Yet here we have articles about artistic works, plays that are lists that depict Jesus as being gay or LGBTQ, as they say, individual plays that depict this stuff, that detail the stuff.
And when you go and look who created these things, it's often just one or two editors.
In some of these cases, these editors are openly saying they are trans and they're pro-trans agenda and ideology.
And there's nothing inherently wrong with that.
It's that their viewpoint is being disproportionately represented and their agenda is being pushed on the site because that's how Wikipedia works, because of the GASP, the global academic, secular, progressive viewpoint.
And if it were the opposite viewpoint, if it were like a, let's say like a strongly fundamentalist view, it would never stick.
You would never see this stuff.
Or if you took Muhammad and put Muhammad as the target of such claims, I promise you, it would not remain on that site for more than three minutes.
I mean, you say it's not inherently wrong, but it's incredibly offensive to take something that has no basis in scripture at all.
I mean, when I was a kid, I remember a teacher in regular public school saying that David and his friend Jonathan must have been gay because that was the Freudian days.
So if anybody, if any two men were friends, they had to be gay.
And I remember as a little kid, I mean, I was in high level elementary school, maybe sixth grade.
And I'm just thinking like, that's ridiculous.
You know, that's ridiculous because I knew enough about their stories.
There is nothing in this.
They're accusing John the Baptist of being like a pedophile, basically.
And it's deeply ill.
It's deeply sick.
The same kind of sickness that went through Disney and should have brought them down.
I was in favor of having people basically used as torches on the lines into Disneyland.
But it's incredibly offensive.
And the number of things, as you say, that link to these obscure plays are vast.
Now, does anybody complain about this?
Does anybody even know what's going on?
No, this is the thing that people don't know about it.
And they don't, not only do they not know that it's going on, it's just sort of out there.
And if you happen to be searching around Wikipedia, if you're a younger person who's on the site, or even if you're not on the site, and this is where it gets really important, is because people say, oh, I don't go to Wikipedia anyways.
But what they don't understand is that Wikipedia goes to you.
It goes to you.
It comes to you through ChatGPT, through Google, through Alexa, through Siri, through Perplexity AI.
It is all these platforms, especially the AI platforms, are training on that data.
They use that data as reference data.
So oftentimes when you ask the AI questions about these topics, it'll pull directly from those entries and give you that answer.
And you, as an end user, busy person with a life and a profession and a family, et cetera, you're not going to go and dig into this stuff and be like, well, where did this come from?
Did it come from Wikipedia?
Which article did it come from?
And who is the editor?
And what does the editor actually believe?
And what are the sources saying?
You just get the final product.
And the problem with all this is that these are absolutely fringe ideas that were being presented in this case of so-called Jesus being gay and John the Baptist having a pederastic relationship as they call it.
These are not, by any stretch of the imagination, mainstream ideas.
And when we come back to the definition of an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's own definition of an encyclopedia, it's not we're going to aggregate every fringe, ideologically motivated idea in one place.
That's not the point.
The point is knowledge.
And the point is actually truth, even though Catherine Maher is infamous for saying that truth is a distraction.
And that comes back to this idea where Wikimedia Foundation, where it turned, it changed its mission under this notion that truth is a distraction, that we need to be open.
Openness means there's no hierarchy, there's no traditional structures, there's no religious basis or idea that truth is an objective thing out there, not a subjective construct of power, which is what I think a lot of the people there do believe.
So at the end of the day, what we are getting is information that is poisoning the rest of the information ecosystem.
Information Poisoning00:02:13
It's sort of leaching into the groundwater, very much the same way that the mainstream media does with its own articles.
And again, that too is not by coincidence because the relationship between the mainstream media and Wikipedia is extremely tight.
Like I said before, it's like infrastructure.
It's piping between the media and the rest of the internet.
If you're a homeowner, you need to listen to this.
In today's AI and cyber world, scammers are stealing home titles and your equity is the target.
Here's how it works.
Criminals forge your signature on one document, use a fake notary stamp, pay a small fee with your accounty, and just like that, your home title has been transferred out of your name.
Then they take out loans using your equity or even sell your property and you won't even know it's happened until you get a collection or foreclosure notice.
Then you'll know.
So when's the last time you checked on your home title?
Probably never.
So you need to do something about it right now.
And that's why I'm partnering with Home Title Lock so you can find out today if you're already a victim.
I know what it's like to get a notice that your home is going to be repossessed by no fault of your own.
It is truly unpleasant.
So use my promo code Clavin at home titlelock.com and you'll get a free title history report and a free trial of their million dollar triple lock protection.
That's 24-7 monitoring of your title, urgent alerts to any changes.
And if fraud does happen, they will spend up to $1 million to fix it.
Don't be a victim.
Protect your equity today.
Go to hometitalock.com and use promo code Clavin.
That's hometitalock.com, promo code Claven.
But there's a catch, you have to know how to spell Clavin, and you probably don't.
It's K-L-A-V-A-N.
So I went on Google not that long ago, a couple of weeks ago, I was trying to just pin down when Tim Kaine from the United Senator from Virginia, when Tim Kaine had said that he found it an awful idea that our rights come from God.
He said, this is the kind of thing you expect from Iran, obviously having no idea that this is actually part of the American founding, that your rights come from God and not from government.
So he embarrassed himself.
It was just a really sad moment.
Google's Misleading AI Context00:10:01
On Google, I just Googled it.
When did he say this?
And on Google, a putative AI came up first and said, here is some context.
Tim Kaine has spent his life fighting for the rights, religious rights.
And I thought, like, what the hell?
You know, like, this is like having some guy show up at my door with pamphlets I don't want.
Is that connected to Wikipedia, do you think?
Or is that just the way their AI works?
Yeah, often it is.
So what you saw there is called Google's AI overview.
And that directly draws from Wikipedia in many cases, not every case.
So I did a little experiment not long ago where I typed in free speech into Google.
And it's not just the first search result on Google that is the Wikipedia result.
And even if it were just that, that would be massive.
When we're talking about across hundreds of thousands of articles, get that number one spot on Google.
We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars in SEO value just there.
But what you're also getting is the Google Knowledge Panel on the side draws from Wikipedia.
And what you were talking about, which is the AI overview at the top now in many searches, not all, is also drawing from Wikipedia.
And that was true with free speech.
So when you like zoom out and look at this entire search result page, you see up top on the side, main search result and something in this case in the free speech example at the very bottom of the page, all coming from Wikipedia.
And again, we're not, nobody really is able to parse this, to understand how this works and to even see that it's there because we move so fast online.
Everything goes so quickly.
It's a blur.
And this is part of the effectiveness.
And it's also part of the long-standing symbiosis between Google and Wikipedia, which has existed since both of them have been around.
We're talking to Ashley Rinsberg.
You can find his stuff at neutralpov.com.
His book is The Grey Lady Winked about the New York Times.
Speaking of the New York Times, they wrote an article.
I can't believe this page.
I read it every morning, and it's just amazing how dishonest it's become.
They ran a story headlined, the culture wars came for Wikipedia, but they're staying the course.
It was an interview, I guess.
Culture Wars came for Wikipedia as if it was started by people like you noticing that they were waging war against knowledge, facts, and the American people.
I mean, this is kind of, it is kind of a structural attempt to impose this worldview on people now that they have lost control of the narrative.
They've lost control of the mainstream.
Nobody cares about the networks anymore.
We know they're lying.
People will rather get their news from the Daily Wire than from NPR, I think.
So is this like an actual concerted effort, or is this just something that happens naturally, in your opinion?
You know, that was the interview with Jimmy Wales, the co-founder.
He had a book out.
And I also found that just such an inversion that it's like nobody would have come for Wikipedia.
It's not like we have pitchforks in our hands and torches to like lynch Wikipedia somehow.
What we're doing is reporting.
This is what the New York Times celebrates.
This is the New York Times' entire mission is to say, okay, something is going on here.
We need to report on it.
But the reality is that Wikipedia thrust itself into the so-called culture wars by doing this very kind of thing.
When you stand up in narrative trying to discredit the president of the United States as a fascist, as an authoritarian, and you're using Marxist sources, you're using Guardian articles that in one extremely prominent case was a sponsored article sponsored by sources, Open Society Foundations, that was used to justify the claim, one of the claims that Trump is an authoritarian and a fascist.
So we have a fire alarm here.
But we'll, you're right.
Maybe I said the wrong thing about the New York Times and Wikipedia.
But that's the inversion.
And that's part of the narrative that is being constructive is that you build a narrative on top of the narrative to say that, oh, it's the right-wing villains that are doing this.
God, I mean, Soros is like, he's like the penguin.
He's like a super villain out of the comic books.
So Jesus is gay.
Trump is a fascist.
What are some other stories that Wikipedia is selling hard?
I did a lot of reporting on the Gang of 40.
This is three dozen plus pro-Hamas editors who had just completely captured anything to do with Israel and Palestine.
And they made around a million edits to 10,000 articles in and around the Israel space, the Middle East space.
They whitewashed Iranian human rights abuses.
They just wholesale removed any mention of Hamas terror attacks.
They removed Hezbollah attacks.
It was just something that they have perpetrated over the course of years and to great effect.
So we see that there.
We see a lot of Chinese infiltration.
These are people who are CCP supporting users.
They say this in their own user boxes on the site.
This user supports the CCP.
This user supports the PRC, China.
And they are extremely active.
And again, what we have here is Wikipedia uses Chinese propaganda organs as reliable sources on the site, including China Daily, which has got yellow-coated.
That means it's somewhat reliable according to Wikipedia, where American conservative outlets are often disproportionately classed as red, meaning they're not reliable.
Fox News is considered to be deprecated, depreciated, meaning never use Fox News as a source as Wikipedia on Wikipedia.
Whereas on the far left, you have The Nation or Mother Jones or until recently, Jacobin, which are all considered green, reliable by Wikipedia.
So this is one of those structural biases, and this is how Wikipedia functions.
Do you think, I mean, you're an investigative reporter, not an activist, but do you think if you called up Google and questioned them about this, that they would be like, oh, gee, we didn't know this was going on, or do you think that they would just be, yeah, this is the way we roll?
I think this is the way they roll.
And this is part and parcel.
Back when Wikipedia was doing that big transformation 2017, 2017, they actually decided to raise $100 million in a new endowment created by Wikipedia.
And they put that endowment in the Tides Foundation.
That's a billion-dollar far-left fund, philanthropic quote-unquote fund.
It's an activist fund.
At that same time that they did that, Google started donating enormous sums, more money by an order of magnitude than they had ever given to anybody.
So they donate $40 million, $70 million, $90 million into Tides.
We don't know.
It's a donor advice fund.
So you don't know where the money actually ends up.
But what we do know is the endowment created by Wikipedia during that period, they tried to reach, the goal was to get $100 million in six years.
They completed that goal within three years.
So this is a Google Wikipedia alliance.
They're deep in it.
Wikipedia has most favored nation status on Google.
And I think Google likes to keep it that way.
So I have felt that we have won a tremendous battle with Trump's elections.
Trump's election was the mark of that victory.
It wasn't the victory itself.
But his election was a mark of the fact that we had broken the monopoly that the left had on news sources.
We had actually established some completely valid, I mean, the Daily Wire is a valid news source.
We do our own reporting.
We report things honestly.
I think Brett Baer over at Fox does a great job.
And we had broken that chokehold they had on the flow of information.
But I have been concerned ever since that the right, who immediately turns to economic matters and policy matters and very rarely really focuses on cultural matters has been letting this victory slide.
And we're letting it kind of, you know, we're letting the left kind of regroup and get back into the game with things like this, by taking over Wikipedia and making it what it is.
Where do you think the right should be showing up?
And again, you're an investigative reporter.
This is kind of asking you to go beyond your brief.
But I mean, what would you like to see happening on the right that would counteract things like this?
I think for me, it's a lot about doing the reporting.
It's a lot about just surfacing this stuff because people have no idea.
And this is a lot of times it's by design that they have no idea.
It's concealed.
So you don't know, like we just talked about.
We don't really know what's going on in Wikipedia or why.
But the moment you bring it to light, because people, I think, have an intuitive sense, just like they did for years with the mainstream media.
They had an intuitive sense that something's not quite right.
They just don't know exactly what until we do all of that work, until we have the conversation, until we ask all those questions and provide the evidence and the proof and the corroboration and not just doing the just asking questions kind of conspiracy theory thing.
But once you do that hard, painstaking work, and it takes time, it takes resource, it takes, you know, sometimes pain.
But once you get to that point, I think you've already gone more than halfway the distance to writing the ship a little bit.
Because it's kind of amazing.
I mean, if I have my own, you know, peculiar way of reading the gospels, and sometimes it's a little off, you know, from what the mainstream is, a little, you know, a little bit off from what the mainstream is.
And I get hammered.
You know, people yell at me.
Oh, no, this is what, you know, this is what my sect says or this is what the Catholic Church says or whatever.
But I mean, I'm appalled by this stuff, the stuff that you're telling me from the religious angle and the stuff that you're telling me from the political angle.
It's appalling in an encyclopedia, what's supposed to be an encyclopedia.
Is AI a solution?
Two Encyclopedias, One Narrative Change00:03:50
Is anything like Grok?
I know that Grok has Grackopedia, don't they?
Is that any kind of an answer to this?
I think the fact that Grakopedia exists does two important things.
One, it changes the narrative.
So for 20 years, we had a knowledge cartel, a monopoly between Google and Wikipedia together.
Having at least another player on the field, a major player like Grackopedia, already changes the story and it gives people choice.
So fine, if Wikipedia wants to conduct itself that way, you know, that's okay.
I think if it bleeds into illegality, it's a different story.
But if we can have another choice where we say, hold on a second, let me go check out what Grockopedia says about COVID lab leak, because I know when I look at the COVID lab leak on Wikipedia, it's telling me it's a conspiracy theory, which is just, it's like, I remember doing this and I reported a lot on COVID lab leak in 2022 and 2023.
And I know that it's not a conspiracy theory.
I can baseline, like it's just not a conspiracy theory.
But when I go to Grackopedia and you just read that it's a legitimate theory.
And in fact, what you also read on Grackopedia is that there are certain people that had conflicts of interest in this space that seeded this notion that it is a conspiracy theory.
And it was like a breath of fresh air to actually breathe and be like, oh, thank God, I can actually read this and feel like I'm a sane person.
And it's not just on that topic.
It's on a whole lot of topics.
So having choice is the big differentiator.
So I eat some fish at least every week.
I used to fish all the time.
I used to fish almost every day.
I love fresh fish and I especially love fresh Alaskan fish because when you catch them up there, they're just so tasty.
It's just hard to describe.
But you can get them without the trip.
That's where Wild Alaskan Company comes in.
They deliver the best wild-caught seafood straight to your home.
Each portion is perfectly sized in six ounce portions and packed with nutrients you won't find in regular store-bought fish.
Once you taste the difference, you won't go back.
Their fish is 100% wild-caught, never farmed, which means you're getting pure seafood with no antibiotics, GMOs, or additives.
These pristine fish support both healthy oceans and fishing communities while delivering exceptional flavor.
I eat a little fish all the time, every week at least.
This is really good stuff.
Plus, each cache is flash frozen right on the boat to preserve its natural taste, texture, and beneficial omega-3s.
When you join Wild Alaskan Company, you're not just getting extraordinary seafood.
You're supporting sustainable harvesting practices in Alaska while enjoying flexible deliveries and expert cooking guidance that makes every meal special.
Not all fish are the same.
Get seafood you can trust.
Go to wildalaskan.com slash Clavin for $35 off your first box of premium wild-caught seafood.
That's wildalaskan.com slash Clavin for $35 off your first order.
Thanks to Wild Alaskan Company for sponsoring this episode and thanks for all the fish.
So what does Grok do that is different?
I mean, AI essentially just sucks up information and regurgitates it.
So what is Grok doing that Google's AI isn't doing?
I guess a lot of cases, it's in the weighting and how you train the model to interpret the information and to display the information.
There's also a safety layer that gets put on top of these models and you can determine how that works.
And so, for example, you know, with ChatGPT or whoever, I don't exactly know which ones, but they might say, we saw this with Google and Gemini early on when it was showing the founding fathers as black or Chinese because they put this layer on top of the model that said, you know, it's basically a woke layer, but to filter the natural tendency of the AI.
Safety Layers And Hope00:02:33
So if you remove that kind of stuff or you put a different kind of filter on, you're going to get different presentation of information.
So again, it's not to say that Grok or Grakapedia is the be all to end all, but what it does is offers a counterbalance, another way of understanding the information that we didn't have before.
And that's why it's important.
It's amazing to me that, I mean, you know, is Elon Musk the only person doing this?
Are there other sources that you're looking at that give you hope in that regard?
There is a great veteran editor of Wikipedia who was really fighting some of the bias in the American politics space.
She was fighting some of the smears against Trump, and they just banned her from the space.
So she's a firecracker and a really brilliant woman.
Her name is Betty Wills, and she went off and started her own online encyclopedia called Justopedia.
It's doing fantastically well.
It's gaining traction.
It's starting to show up in Google search results for the first time.
So again, we have another instance where someone says, you know what, enough of this.
We have enough tools and technology out there that we don't have to just bemoan the fact.
We can actually do something about it.
And she's done that.
It's going really well.
And I think people are going to do more and more of this kind of thing.
And hopefully, when you have AI training on this kind of stuff, they're not going to be just training on one or two big sources of information like Wikipedia or Reddit, but it's going to be much more diverse intellectually.
Not just the ethnic and racial diversity that loves to be trumpeted, but the intellectual, ideological diversity that's very important.
Amazing story.
Ashley Rinsberg at neutralpov.com.
Is there anywhere else people can go to find your material?
Is neutral POV your site?
Yeah, check us out there or on X. I'm Ashley Rinsberg on X.
We are also NPOV Media.
We're on YouTube and Instagram if that's where you like to be, NPOV Media.
So we'll be happy to see you there, answer questions, and hear what you have to say about our information ecosystem.
Great stuff, Ashley.
Thanks a lot for coming on.
I really appreciate it.
It's good to see you again.
Thanks, Andrew.
I got to be honest.
I mean, I love talking to Ashley, but it was a little hard to get through that interview after we were talking about the Jesus story that is so sick and despicable that it was hard to talk about with a straight face.
I hope you guys got the information you needed because I really think we should be paying attention to this.
And you could get even more terrific information, entertainment, and just charm at the Andrew Clavin Show on Friday.