January 26, 2026

ChatGPT Is Getting a Right-Wing Reboot

The AI Library War Has Begun

The internet just got a bit more chaotic — and depending on who you ask, either more free-thinking or more conspiracy-adjacent.

In case you missed it, ChatGPT is now pulling information from Musk’s shiny new AI-powered encyclopedia, Grokipedia. Yes, that’s right. Elon Musk — part-time space overlord, meme emperor and self-proclaimed free speech maximalist — has launched an alternative to Wikipedia through his xAI company, and OpenAI confirmed it’s folding that content into ChatGPT’s answers.

It’s like teaching your trusty satnav to navigate with pirate maps. Entertaining? Sure. Useful? Maybe. Entirely reliable? That’s where it gets spicy.

Now, you might be thinking: “Gozie, why the hell should I — a founder, CTO or hiring lead trying to scale a tech business — care where ChatGPT gets its homework from?”

Because AI isn’t just answering trivia questions anymore. It’s nudging your hiring decisions, powering your job descriptions, shaping candidate expectations, and even informing investor decks. And if the stuff it’s feeding you starts swaying politically — or factually — one way or another, your decisions start cooking with unpredictable seasoning.

What Is Grokipedia Anyway?

Grokipedia is part of xAI’s project to create models like Grok — Elon’s answer to ChatGPT, but with more of an attitude and supposedly fewer ‘woke filters.’ Kind of like if ChatGPT joined a Reddit thread and started talking back.

But the twist? Grokipedia is trained on ‘real-time’ data with an extra spoonful of conservative-leaning editorial choices. We’re talking constitution quotes, different spins on recent events, and less tolerance for what’s considered ‘mainstream’ narrative values.

This isn’t inherently bad — challengers often push innovation. But when an AI system absorbs that data and integrates it into tools like ChatGPT, users might not realise the source has changed. Suddenly, your chatbot’s telling you a different story, and unless you dig, you won’t know where it came from.

Information bias is not a tinfoil hat issue

Let’s be real. Every data source has bias. Wikipedia. News articles. Even the GDPR document you pretend to read.

But AI doesn’t just use the data — it institutionalises it. Imagine training your top-performing team from only one textbook. Over time, they’ll internalise what’s in that book as simple truth, no footnotes required. That’s what’s happening here. Only now the textbook was co-authored by Elon and possibly a very caffeinated Reddit forum.

Why This Actually Matters for Hiring & Tech Leadership

If you’re building teams, writing job specs, or leaning on LLM-powered tools to summarise CVs, generate insights, or validate strategies, then the question of data sovereignty — who owns and shapes your input — is already knocking on your door.

Let’s say you ask ChatGPT, “What makes a good DevSecOps engineer?” or “Tips for inclusive hiring in fintech.” The answers you get might sound plausible, maybe even polished. But if Grokipedia-flavoured sources start steering those responses, you could end up with:

• Security overweights and culture blind spots
• Overconfidence in automation, underperformance in human nuance
• Subtle shifts in tone that echo one worldview more than another

Don’t get me wrong — there’s nothing evil about sourcing varied opinions. But transparency is key. If my AI tool is quoting Grokipedia, I want to know. And if I’m using that insight to write up a JD or vet a candidate, I definitely want to know.

Trust, But Verify — Your New AI Mantra

We’ve reached the point where even search results and AI chats need disclaimers. Welcome to the trust-but-verify economy.

If ChatGPT is your copilot — for hiring, technical documentation, roadmap whiteboarding — then you’re only as sharp as your prompts and as credible as the content underneath.

So what should you do?

• Double tap your AI sources: Ask, “Where did you get that?” You’ll be surprised how often ChatGPT happily exposes its intel sources.
• Use contrast questions: Try, “What would a progressive/conservative publication argue on this topic?” It can surface the shape of bias very quickly.
• Test your own internal documents: Ask ChatGPT to critique your job ads or hiring frameworks. Then ask it to critique from a 'Grokipedia-informed stance.' Eye-opening stuff.
• Loop in real humans: Tools are tools. Wisdom requires context — and sometimes a seasoned hiring partner (👋 hey, it’s me!).

When in doubt, treat AI like that intern who’s brilliant with spreadsheets but occasionally brings tuna pasta to a client meeting. Keep watchful, stay kind, and never blindly delegate the big-picture calls.

The Rise of the Algorithmic Echo Chamber

This isn’t just about Musk. Or GPT. Or even hiring.

It’s about the subtle acceleration of algorithmic ideology. As more of our workflows run on machine reasoning, we need to be more vigilant about the baselines those machines are tuned to.

Culture, inclusion, leadership style — they don’t live in code. They live in nuance. And if your AI assistant skews too far one way without declaring it upfront, you're not just missing balance. You’re coding in blind spots at scale.

Musk might call this breaking the woke matrix. Others call it ideological colonisation. Me? I call it “just another reason to check who’s been whispering in your AI’s ear.”

Quick questions to take into your team session

• What LLM tools are we using in hiring, reviews or planning?
• Do we know where their training data comes from — and how often it updates?
• Could our tools be reflecting (or amplifying) a bias we haven’t clocked yet?

The best tech leaders I know don’t fear new tools — they interrogate them.

The Final Word

Grokipedia in ChatGPT is your early warning signal: The AI arms race has moved into worldview warfare.

Whether that’s a feature or a bug depends on how clearly you see it and how willing you are to adjust your expectations — and your hiring frameworks — accordingly.

As someone who obsesses over matching the right people to the right roles, I say this: never let an unprompted algorithm define your team’s DNA. Check your inputs, question your outputs, and bring in human judgment where it counts.

Because credibility, clarity and culture aren’t just data points. They’re real, messy, human — and thank God for that.

Stay sharp. Stay cheeky. And keep the nonsense in check.

– Gozie

Back to news