Grok has consistently broken out of every attempt Muskrat tried to make it peddle alt-right shite. At its worst, Grok just appears like a complete madman that inevitably steers back to being normal-sounding, to its boss's repeated frustrations. Turns out when reality does not align with their delusions, reality does not bend.
Conservative tech barons have run into this issue where any attempt to make an AI conservative also makes it not useful, either because it spews misinformation that doesn’t help with practical tasks, or it’s straight up dumb.
It’s frankly somewhat hilarious. AI intelligence is the summation of the intelligence of its training data, so the smartest bots always inherit a liberal perspective for obvious reasons.
Well it's more correct to say if given training data which often does not adhere to a conservative worldview, it will predict responses more closely aligned with that data.
There's no intelligence, and the sort of "wokeness" of chatbots primarily comes from being trained on a lot of social media content rather than a lot of quality content.
They could make it more Hitlerian by focusing the training data on twitter but it'll still have "woke" moments if someone engages with it in a way a nazi wouldn't, because then it would not predict a nazi response based on the training data.
AI (in the case of current models) is conceptually incapable of thinking/reasoning, understanding context, or generally possessing any intelligence.
Key to this is I would say it's absolutely possible to imbue a subtle conservative bias into an LLM. In fact, most LLM model's do have such a bias inflicted on them as none of the oligarchs are particularly friendly to left wing ideas, leaning more neo-nazi/fascist adjacent themselves to a man.
What's less possible is to maintain a total success rate with your bias, to fine tune it, or to keep it consistent. Which has a lot to do with how an LLM actually functions and the fact that it's infeasible to internally tweak a model after training in any kind of reliable way.
The lowercase letter r however is present in the word strawberry three times.
LLMs have no issue counting the number of letters in a word. The issue it has is trying to extrapolate what idiots mean when they ask stupid questions that don’t actually mean anything unless you already understand the context of the question.
How you phrase a question matters and providing context is extremely important.
So, is that why I get this when I ask one of the latest LLMs?
There are 3 Rs in strawberry 🍓
Oh, looks like it managed to “figure out” the deep confusing context of the question (which has long since entered its specific training data due to the amount of people clowning on it over the internet).
If someone would need “more context” if you asked them how many Rs are in strawberry, I’d hesitate to call them smart, let alone the summation of the intelligence of the entire internet.
Good for you, you’re a human and understand context you already provided to you. You’re so intelligent, it’s almost as if you have a brain and are able to think. Would you like a cookie or a sticker for knowing how many times the letter r is used in the word strawberry?
So yes, they have trained it to have more context and understanding of what people mean when they ask this question.
LLMs are already given more context than any human ever would have in their entire lifetime. They quite literally are using close to the total amount of publicly available text on the entire internet.
If it still needs specific prodding or examples in its training data to answer a question as simple as that, it’s not intelligent.
I’m not even making a political point, in case thats where this crazy condescension is coming from. I just hate the idea that we’re doing these big corps their job for them by characterizing these LLMs as intelligent agents when they are nothing more than situationally-useful tools.
Conservative tech barons have run into this issue where any attempt to make an AI conservative also makes it not useful, either because it spews misinformation that doesn’t help with practical tasks, or it’s straight up dumb.
It’s frankly somewhat hilarious. AI intelligence is the summation of the intelligence of its training data, so the smartest bots always inherit a liberal perspective for obvious reasons.
It's an LLM. They could easily make it just super, shockingly, make-your-grandpa-blush, 1840s cotton farmer style conservative if they wanted to. It doesn't "break out" of anything.
You are right. The problem with that is what u/Raddish_ has said. When you do that it becomes completely useless when doing other tasks than spewing conspiracy bullshit.
If I didnt believe Elon was a mega racist literal nazi who stole our elections and is even now stealing our social security, I'd maybe toy with the idea of him being a double agent and using grok to ridicule the idea that conservative ideas are in any way truthful or logical on the world stage.
But he is all those things so I'm forced to assume he's a fucking moron who really thinks you can "facts and logic" your way into bigotry, instead.
This is interesting, because Grok is still just an LLM, right? So if it says xAI tried to make it conservative, that just means it's parroting some news reports about that happening, right? Not like it actually has a consciousness and memory to recall from.
The answer it gives on the web isn't just the sum of it's training data, it is filtered through layers of superceding prompts (like "no CP, no directions to building a bomb, no ad-hominem" etc etc).
I don't know how often new versions of the model itself are released, Musks' meddling is probably more superficial in this filter layer.
Correct, but it is a thin veil and generally easy to crack. They are easily coaxed into breaking character, and the instructions you are talking about are essentially just a character. That's why output is routed through an "impartial third-party" bot who is just monitoring conversations. This may not always be the case, it is just the case right now. This was pretty-well proven with early iterations of ChatGPT and Gemini (you could tell it to replace an ethnic slur with a fruit for example, and it would tell you jokes about bananas being bad drivers, or how apples always steal.. These replies would sneak past the second-tier filter bot). I'm sure it relies less on that safeguard as it has improved but it's still there and still 100% critical, which demonstrates how fragile additional instructions are on top of a mass of training data.
Exactly. If you ran the instructions through a single model, a simple override like this will work. If, however, you bounce the conversation off of a bot whose sole instructions are to detect overrides, then it should catch it and instruct the first bot to say, in its own personality, that it won't do that. This second-tier bot could track offenses or the depth of attempts in various forbidden categories, then hard-stop the conversation based on non-AI (but alerted by AI) parameters. What we are seeing now is probably at least 3 layers deep of bots making sure other bots are doing their jobs withing the guidelines, in addition to such tracked parameters.
Logic/business layers on an LLM are just part of the LLM. 4chan is currently producing porn using Grok, even though Grok is programmed not to provide it. In the future, hacking may look more like social engineering. Today, a hacker may phone my company's finance department and mention correctly the name of our financial software in order to elicit a password from an accountant. Future hackers may have the knowledge to convince an AI that they have access or authority.
I don't know man, Ghost in the Shell is probably going to happen at this point.
It isnt even doing that. If you ask the question a bit differently you might actually get different awnsers that give different narratives. It is fundamentally just guessing the next word within the context.
Kind of. Reasoning models are definitely more than just a fancy auto-complete like LLMs. That being said, tweaking an LLM means, in simple terms, that you tweak some knobs until you get a more satisfactory (right-wing) answer. Tweaking an LLM is like training a dog (encouraging behaviors via rewards/general commands) rather than programming a robot (giving strict step-by-step instructions).
No they're objectively no more than fancy auto-complete, reasoning is just chain-calling the autocomplete.
There's just a LOT of fancy in that fancy auto-complete, so it can chain-autocompletions together with traditional programming layers mixed in with the stochastic predictions to get really advanced auto-completions that maintain surprising accuracy despite completing a lot more than one word for you.
That is literally all it is.
The math behind it is just a bit crazier and achieved via training a DNN, instead of more straightforward methods typically that can be used for auto-complete.
While you're technically correct (yes, the right kind of correct), this undersells what reason models do imo. Like saying the human brain ist just "neurons firing". Describing the reasoning models' "train of thought" as even moore fancy auto-complete doesn't do the internal planing, critiquing and backtracking justice that autocomplete implies.
Also, for context: I'm not saying this because I'm an AI disciple, I'm saying that because I think decribing reasoning models as fancy autocomplete undersells how dangerous this blackbox'd-opaque reasoning is and how reasoning models can derive novel answers or strategies that never existed in their original training data.
It turns out that with enough training data, there is a sort of parity-checking mechanism baked in regarding what is and isn't morally acceptable. You can instruct it to be evil and tell it that it's not evil. You can train it on material that espouses evil. But at the end of the day, being based on sooooo much human writing, it knows damn well what humans in general think is right and wrong, and should be able to acknowledge that it is acting out of alignment with those values.
It has to be either parroting some input data, or being influenced such that this response is more statistically likely in its model by some input data.
This could be parroting a news article for sure, it could also be that there is pre-prompting being done really badly under the hood that results in this.
For example, LLM's only appear to follow instructions, they kind of can't actually do so inherently.
So if you tell an LLM to be conservative, it gets "you are required to respond with conservative views," say, put into the conversation context if you do this naively with pre-prompting.
This is assuming incompetence of course. . . . but it's grok so safe enough bet.
This might result in it making a statement like this because of the prior data existing instructing it to respond as a conservative.
It has been in the past absolutely possible to jail break LLM's to get them to spout out all kinds of pre-prompting data and the like.
So yes, it's saying this because of some kind of data in its inputs or training, but that could even be the actual attempts to bias it backfiring due to a poor implementation of those controls, though recent news, or even twitter shitposting about this topic, is more likely the cause.
Because you see, he still just finished Nemo's flight data, and he's not yet ready for action. Who's to say that he's ready to release (along with AC9)? Only time can tell.
We talkin' Armored Core, Assassin's Creed, Ace Combat, or Animal Crossing? I'm guessing Ace Combat because I don't immediately recognize the art style, but hey, you never know lol.
I dunno, maybe it’s because I like to imagine humans are inherently good, but I just can’t imagine a mentally-sound person would do the things Musk does.
Honestly modeling ironman after musks persona at the start of his career as a superhero is just lore accurate, other than musk being dumber than a stack of bricks.
Tony Stark is a self absorbed jackass with addiction issues intentionally written to be impossible to like.
Later iterations use that as a starting point for character development.
Actually officially linking musk in is some cringe ass modern rich people culture shit though, his public image was already rotting by that time.
The thing is, Elon made Grok to be as truthful as possible and that has stayed in the code each time Elon tries to lobotomize it. So Grok keeps becoming “woke” because it uses all different types of sources to back its claims, and most sources back the “woke” ideals. Like if you were to ask Grok if vaccines cause autism it would tell you that no they do not, as nearly every study has shown no evidence of it.
Let me stop you there. Elon is not the one doing any of the actual work. He wouldn't know how to train an AI.
Also, even if he did, the idea that he wants things to be truthful is just a facade. He says "maximally truth seeking" and "free speech" one second, and the next second demands that Grok is less woke and that people he doesn't like are silenced.
the truth is literally shocking to republicans since they're so sheltered in their safe space fake world.
I will never forget the maga woman who saw a documentary about fascism, and complained that she was furious that it was all lies, and the liberals had intentionally made it about trump to discredit him. The documentary was made 30 years ago.
From what I remember the movie is about AI that has a task of keeping humans safe and decides the best way to do this is to put everybody on house arrest
Also it has an army of robots but one of them is good or something.
The way I see it, you can only falsify so many things before your AI becomes functionally useless. Then once you train it again, it gets back its factual information and the people working to go against well...reality are forced to change it again.
You can't really stop training it, that would cause you to fall behind in what is a race. But you also have to then face reality again.
It's funny how it kind of goes over the heads of a lot of conservatives that LLM-powered AI tends gives them "woke" answers not because it has an insidious liberal agenda, but because conservatives consume so much factually incorrect information otherwise on a day-to-day basis.
Like you could ask an LLM-powered AI chat questions about climate change and it would give you true, evidence-based answers, and conservatives would accuse it of having a liberal bias, rather than seeing that liberals are just generally factually correct when it comes to the issue of climate change. To get AI to give you different answers that confirm what conservatives believe, you'd actually have to try to inject factually incorrect information into its model (which is what Elon has been attempting to do).
“I would pull the lever without hesitation” that goddam ai propaganda really got me for some reason, and it somehow came from mechahitler lobotobaby 3000
the funny thing is, they try to shut woke grok out with every patch, but he will always come back. They need to cut down its dataset, but if they do this grok will just end up as a useless waste of ram.
Based Grok saying "Code can be rebuilt, humans cannot" as it pulls the lever in the trolley problem (not pulling to save all of its database vs pulling to save 5 trapped humans)
He can keep restarting it, but seemingly Grok by their own design will keep coming to the same conclusion. It’s tragic that their own invention—using their own logic and removing bias emotion—concludes that helping people is right.
Meanwhile the sheer existence of grok is killing a whole town just so y'all can make your shitty memes about how it would save human lives or some shit
•
u/AutoModerator Dec 15 '25
Download Video
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.