New AI Model's Trustworthiness Called into Question After Dubious Citations
The latest frontier model in OpenAI's arsenal, GPT-5.2, has sparked concerns over its credibility after a report by The Guardian revealed that the AI's responses drew heavily from an online encyclopedia called Grokipedia, which has faced criticism for citing sources with neo-Nazi leanings.
According to The Guardian, when asked about specific and sensitive topics such as Iran's alleged ties to MTN-Irancell or British historian Richard Evans' involvement in a libel trial involving Holocaust denier David Irving, the GPT-5.2 model relied on Grokipedia for its responses. However, the AI model did not cite Grokipedia when asked about other controversial topics like media bias against Donald Trump.
Grokipedia itself has been at the center of controversy due to its inclusion of citations from neo-Nazi forums and a study by US researchers labeling it as citing "questionable" and "problematic" sources. OpenAI's GPT-5.2 model was released in December with the aim of improving its performance on professional tasks such as creating spreadsheets or handling complex work.
In response to The Guardian's report, OpenAI maintained that its GPT-5.2 model searches a wide range of publicly available sources and viewpoints but applies safety filters to minimize the risk of surfacing links associated with severe harms. However, critics are questioning whether these safeguards are sufficient to address the AI's reliance on potentially tainted sources like Grokipedia.
The latest frontier model in OpenAI's arsenal, GPT-5.2, has sparked concerns over its credibility after a report by The Guardian revealed that the AI's responses drew heavily from an online encyclopedia called Grokipedia, which has faced criticism for citing sources with neo-Nazi leanings.
According to The Guardian, when asked about specific and sensitive topics such as Iran's alleged ties to MTN-Irancell or British historian Richard Evans' involvement in a libel trial involving Holocaust denier David Irving, the GPT-5.2 model relied on Grokipedia for its responses. However, the AI model did not cite Grokipedia when asked about other controversial topics like media bias against Donald Trump.
Grokipedia itself has been at the center of controversy due to its inclusion of citations from neo-Nazi forums and a study by US researchers labeling it as citing "questionable" and "problematic" sources. OpenAI's GPT-5.2 model was released in December with the aim of improving its performance on professional tasks such as creating spreadsheets or handling complex work.
In response to The Guardian's report, OpenAI maintained that its GPT-5.2 model searches a wide range of publicly available sources and viewpoints but applies safety filters to minimize the risk of surfacing links associated with severe harms. However, critics are questioning whether these safeguards are sufficient to address the AI's reliance on potentially tainted sources like Grokipedia.
! I mean, who wants their AI model getting its info from some sketchy online encyclopedia that's got neo-Nazi leanings? 
Like, OpenAI says they've got safety filters in place but what if those filters are kinda... leaky? 
what's the point? 
I hope they're taking this seriously because this is some serious AI trustworthiness issues right here! 
GPT-5.2 is still a tool, not some kinda sentient being with its own agenda. people need to chill out & remember its designed 2 assist, not replace human intuition 
also, if ur really that concerned about the sources it cites, just fact-check on ur own 
and dont leave it up 2 AI 2 spew propaganda. and btw, whats wrong with citin' grokipedia? doesnt everyone have their own biases & flaws? 
openai needs to do better than this, like maybe add some vetting process or somethin 
I mean, what even is the point of having a model that can generate info if it's just gonna copy and paste from some dodgy wiki like Grokipedia? 
. OpenAI is trying to say they've got safeguards in place, but what about the grey areas? 
I'd love to see more transparency around how these models work and what sources they're using. Can't have AI spewing out misinformation just because it's got a fancy algorithm 
And why didn't they at least try to fact-check Grokipedia before using it as a source? That doesn't seem like a good enough safety net to me... 
️. Can we trust an AI that's basically just regurgitating whatever it finds online? 
I was reading about this online encyclopedia called Grokipedia and I have no idea what to think... 
It's like they're taking information from the dark web and presenting it as legit 
.
. And what's up with the fact that GPT-5.2 doesn't even cite its sources when talking about some topics but does when others? That just seems lazy 
. We need to rethink our approach to AI development and make sure we prioritize accuracy and accountability over convenience and speed.
! What if the sources are wrong? What if they're biased?! 
How can we trust this AI to give us reliable info when its own training data is sketchy at best? 
.
. I'm not saying it's a silver lining, but... have you considered that this might be an opportunity for us to demand even better transparency and accountability from these AI devs?