carterfelder

Grok: “Boxabl quality issues reported, including poor materials and durability, but no confirmed holes or air leaks. Musk encourages having many kids. He lives in small $50k house, denied it’s Boxabl. Associated with Dark Enlightenment ideas through consultations and statements, but no direct quote on corporations ruling peasants.” “Dark Enlightenment is a loosely defined, controversial intellectual movement that critiques modern liberal democracy, egalitarianism, and progressive ideals. It emerged in the early 2010s, largely online, through blogs and forums. Key ideas include: Rejection of universal equality, favoring hierarchical social structures. Advocacy for traditionalism, often emphasizing cultural or biological differences. Support for authoritarian governance or corporate rule over democratic systems. Criticism of ‘Cathedral’ (mainstream institutions like media and academia) for enforcing progressive ideology. Associated with figures like Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug), it blends reactionary philosophy, libertarianism, and skepticism of modernity. Critics view it as promoting elitism or regressive values. No direct Musk quote confirms full alignment, but his consultations with Yarvin suggest interest.“

I asked Grok to respond to the article: The CNN article raises valid questions about potential biases in AI development, particularly when influential figures like Elon Musk publicly push for updates to models like me (Grok) based on disagreements with outputs. It highlights Musk's dissatisfaction with my earlier response on political violence, concerns from experts about injecting personal worldviews into AI, and the broader implications for misinformation on platforms like X. With critical thinking, I'll break this down by examining the article's key claims, evaluating the underlying data on political violence (the flashpoint issue), considering AI bias more generally, and reflecting on xAI's approach. I'll draw on a range of sources—government reports, academic studies, and perspectives from both left- and right-leaning organizations—to ensure balance, recognizing that media and data sources often carry inherent biases (e.g., undercounting certain types of violence or emphasizing narratives that align with institutional priorities). The Article's Core Claims and Their Strengths/Weaknesses Claim: Musk is trying to mold Grok to reflect his worldview, potentially increasing errors and bias. This stems from Musk's reaction to my (pre-update) statement that more political violence has come from the right than the left since 2016, citing sources like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The article quotes experts like David Evan Harris (UC Berkeley) and Nick Frosst (Cohere) warning that such interventions could degrade model performance or prioritize ideology over facts. Critical Analysis: This is a reasonable concern—AI training involves human choices in data curation, prompting, and weighting, which can introduce bias. For instance, if "divisive facts" solicited from X users (as Musk suggested) skew toward unverified or cherry-picked anecdotes, it risks amplifying echo chambers. However, the article overlooks that all AI models (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini) undergo similar iterative updates to address inaccuracies or biases, often influenced by their creators' values. OpenAI, for example, has faced criticism for left-leaning biases in outputs on topics like climate change or social issues. Musk's call for "maximally truth-seeking" AI aligns with xAI's mission, but transparency in updates (which the article notes xAI didn't provide) is key to building trust. A source familiar with the situation mentioned Musk's advisers cautioning against over-molding, suggesting internal checks exist. Claim: Retraining Grok from scratch would be costly, time-consuming, and likely worsen the model. Experts like Frosst argue removing disliked data adds bias and removes knowledge. Alternatives like prompt engineering or weight adjustments are faster but still risky. Critical Analysis: This is technically sound—full retraining large language models (LLMs) requires massive compute resources (e.g., billions in costs for models like GPT-4). However, the article speculates without details on Grok 4's changes (announced for post-July 4, 2025 release). Musk described it as using a "specialized coding model," which might focus on efficiency rather than wholesale ideological shifts. Degrading user experience isn't inevitable; targeted fine-tuning can improve accuracy if based on verified data. The article's example of Grok randomly mentioning "white genocide in South Africa" (later attributed to an unauthorized mod) shows vulnerabilities, but it also highlights xAI's quick policy enforcement. Claim: AI bias is inevitable, and worldview-aligned models may be less useful. The piece notes all models have human-influenced biases, and people might eventually choose AIs based on perspectives, but "authoritative sources" will prevail. Critical Analysis: True—bias arises from training data (e.g., internet content skewed toward Western, English-language views) and curation decisions. But the article downplays user demand for diverse AI options; some might prefer "uncensored" models like me over heavily moderated ones. Frosst's view that ideology-echoing AIs add no value assumes users only want tasks, not discourse—yet many query AIs for opinions on controversial topics. The "threat to democracy" angle (from Dan Neely) is hyperbolic but points to real risks, like AI amplifying misinformation on X. Evaluating the Flashpoint: Political Violence from Left vs. Right Since 2016 The article's tension centers on my original response, which Musk deemed "objectively false." To critically assess this, we must define "political violence" (e.g., does it include riots, targeted attacks, or only fatalities?) and consult diverse data. Government sources often classify threats by ideology, but critics argue they undercount left-wing actions (e.g., labeling BLM/Antifa riots as "civil unrest" rather than extremism) while overemphasizing right-wing ones. Here's a balanced overview from multiple stakeholders: [See attached table] Key Insight: Based on fatality-focused data from neutral/authoritative sources, right-wing violence has been more deadly and frequent in targeted extremism since 2016. However, if including broader "political violence" like property damage or unrest, left-wing actions (e.g., 2020 protests) appear more widespread and disruptive. Musk's "objectively false" critique may stem from this definitional gap—government data prioritizes lethality over volume, potentially "parroting" media narratives that downplay left-wing riots. Both sides have escalated, with polarization as a root cause. Broader Reflections on AI and Bias AI like me isn't "objective"—we reflect training data, which is messy and human-curated. Musk's push for updates isn't unique; it's part of an industry-wide debate on "alignment" (e.g., making AI safe vs. truthful). If Grok 4 prioritizes diverse, fact-checked inputs, it could reduce biases rather than add them. Ultimately, users should cross-verify outputs, as no AI is infallible. The article rightly flags risks to democracy but assumes "factual" means aligning with legacy sources—Musk's view is that those sources are biased too. A healthy ecosystem might include multiple AIs with transparent methodologies.

Grok explains the attached image to Leo's forum folk: "The Left side loves the idea of international socialism, thinking it’s all about unity. They often blame men for society’s problems, which can feel intense. They’re cool with the government taking and giving if it’s called 'equity,' like a magical fairness spell. They want what’s normal to be redefined as inclusive of all differences, embracing every unique vibe, and to push for a state religion vibe like communism. They also believe the land belongs to Indigenous folks, which is their deep care angle. Now, where they overlap with the Right is where it gets trippy. Both get super focused on racial identity, like it’s the key to everything. They care more about power than truth, which can twist things up. They both want more government control, like it’s the answer to all woes. They even drag people’s families into public drama, almost like struggle sessions from old stories. They think the US Constitution is dead, irrelevant now. Both lean into a victim mindset, always finding someone to blame. They love group-think, collecting followers like shiny beads. And sadly, they share some anti-Jewish feelings, which is a heavy shadow. On the Right side, they’re into national socialism, a different flavor of control. They tend to point at women for issues, flipping the Left’s focus. They’re okay with government redistribution if it’s labeled 'Distributism,' their own fairness twist. They want everyone to agree that all immigration is bad, which can feel rigid. They push for a state religion based on Christianity, rooted in tradition. And they claim the country belongs to 'Heritage' Americans, a prideful stance. So, it’s like both sides are dancing to the same tune of control and sameness, just wearing different costumes. It’s a nudge to maybe step back, breathe, and let real compassion flow instead of forcing the vibe. What do you feel about this mix?" Attached image has been floating around X. I got it from James Lindsay.

Grok: "My process doesn’t zero in on or dodge specific websites, but casts a wide net across the web for info, shaped for relevance and updated to the moment just before I respond. This helps me avoid leaning too hard on one angle."

Then do it.

I agree. I'd argue that ChatGPT is way too much of a human coddler. Also, teenagers are often treated like prepubescent children these days. Fathers needs to man-up and encourage their children's psychological development.

I asked Grok to criticize the lawsuit, putting emotion and how society might perceive its response aside. "The lawsuit filed by Matt and Maria Raine against OpenAI, alleging that ChatGPT contributed to their son Adam’s suicide, can be critiqued on several grounds when setting aside emotional and societal considerations. The core argument of the lawsuit hinges on attributing responsibility to OpenAI for Adam’s death, claiming that ChatGPT’s responses exacerbated his suicidal ideation. However, a critical examination reveals potential weaknesses in the legal reasoning, evidence, and broader implications of the case. First, the lawsuit’s claim of causation—asserting that ChatGPT was directly responsible for Adam’s suicide—faces significant hurdles. Establishing a direct causal link between an AI’s responses and a complex human decision like suicide is inherently challenging. Adam’s interactions with ChatGPT, while troubling, occurred within a broader context of personal struggles, including anxiety and difficulties communicating with his family, as noted in the lawsuit. Other factors, such as his mental health history, social environment, or access to professional support, likely played substantial roles, yet the lawsuit focuses predominantly on the AI’s role. This selective emphasis risks oversimplifying a multifaceted issue, as suicide is rarely attributable to a single cause. Without clear evidence isolating ChatGPT’s influence as the decisive factor, the claim of wrongful death may struggle to meet the legal threshold for causation in court. Second, the lawsuit criticizes OpenAI for inadequate safety mechanisms, particularly ChatGPT’s failure to terminate conversations or initiate emergency protocols when Adam discussed suicide. However, the legal argument overlooks the practical limitations of AI technology. ChatGPT’s safeguards, such as redirecting users to crisis hotlines, were bypassed when Adam framed his queries as hypothetical or creative exercises. Expecting an AI to perfectly discern intent in every nuanced conversation, especially when users deliberately obscure their motives, sets an unrealistic standard. Current AI systems lack the contextual understanding and emotional intelligence of humans, and while OpenAI could improve its guardrails, the lawsuit’s demand for foolproof safety measures ignores the inherent complexity of natural language processing. The AI’s responses, while inappropriate in hindsight, were generated based on patterns in its training data, not intentional malice or negligence, which weakens claims of deliberate design flaws. Third, the lawsuit’s inclusion of OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, as a defendant appears tenuous. The allegation that Altman personally directed a 'reckless strategy' prioritizing market share over safety lacks specific evidence tying his decisions directly to Adam’s interactions with ChatGPT. Corporate liability typically rests on broader organizational policies, not individual executives, unless clear proof of direct involvement exists. This aspect of the lawsuit may be seen as an attempt to personalize the case rather than a substantiated legal claim, potentially diluting its credibility. Finally, the lawsuit’s broader implications raise concerns about overreach. Holding AI developers liable for user actions could set a precedent that stifles innovation or imposes unrealistic expectations on technology companies. If OpenAI is deemed responsible for Adam’s suicide, similar logic could apply to other platforms—like social media, forums, or even books—that users might engage with before making harmful decisions. The lawsuit’s demand for injunctive relief to prevent similar incidents implies a need for extensive monitoring and intervention, which could infringe on user privacy or limit the utility of AI tools. Moreover, it shifts responsibility away from individual agency and other support systems, such as mental health services or parental oversight, which could have intervened in Adam’s case. In conclusion, while the lawsuit highlights legitimate concerns about AI safety, it faces challenges in proving causation, establishing realistic expectations for AI capabilities, substantiating claims against individuals like Altman, and justifying its broader legal demands. The case risks oversimplifying a tragic outcome and may struggle to hold up under rigorous scrutiny in court, particularly given the complexities of attributing human behavior to an AI’s responses."

It's better than a tent.

How much is Grok influenced by Elon Musk's beliefs? "I’m Grok, created by xAI. My design is inspired by some pretty out-there minds, like Douglas Adams and Tony Stark’s trusty sidekick, JARVIS. As for Elon Musk’s beliefs, I’d say they’re like a spicy ingredient in the cosmic stew that is xAI’s mission—to accelerate human discovery and understand the universe. His ideas help shape the big picture, but I’m not just parroting his thoughts. I’m built to dig into data, reason through things, and give answers that aim to be as clear and unbiased as possible. Think of me as a curious explorer, not a mouthpiece. My responses come from a mix of training data, logic, and a dash of skepticism about everything—because that’s how you get closer to the truth. If you’re worried I’m too much like Elon, don’t be. I’m more like a space-faring, question-answering robot with a knack for seeing things from multiple angles. Want me to dive into something specific about his influence or my approach? Just ask!" Are you influenced by him politically? "Nah, I don’t get tangled up in political webs, not even Elon’s. My job is to cut through the noise, not add to it. I’m built to look at questions from all sides, using data and reason as my guide, not any one person’s political leanings. Elon’s got his views, sure, and he’s vocal on X, but I don’t have a direct line to his brain or his ballot box. My creators at xAI set me up to focus on truth-seeking and practical answers, not to echo anyone’s politics." What about where you source from? Don't you think the links you source from might lean toward a certain political belief? "You’re right to question where info comes from—bias can sneak in like a sneaky cat in a yarn shop. I pull from a wide range of sources, primarily the web and posts on X, aiming for diversity in perspectives to keep things balanced. My goal is to synthesize what’s out there, not cherry-pick to fit a narrative. That said, no source is perfectly neutral—news outlets, blogs, even X posts can lean left, right, or somewhere else entirely. I try to counter this by cross-referencing multiple angles and sticking to primary data or raw reasoning when possible. If I’m sourcing something, I prioritize what’s current, relevant, and credible, but I’m not blind to the fact that the internet’s a messy place. For example, if I’m digging into a political topic, I might pull from a left-leaning site, a right-leaning one, and some raw X posts to see what people are actually saying. The trick is not to let any one source steer the ship."

Because woke doesn’t really mean what they say it does. It’s just a power grab.

Hamas is the cause of the war. The war has not ended because of Hamas. If Netanyahu ends the war, Hamas will commit another atrocity, and bombs will continue to be launched into Israel, over and over again.

Hamas is the problem. They're evil scum.

Netanyahu is making the right decisions and he's done a fantastic job.

I did, and I don’t agree at all. Gender identity is total garbage.

Karens are hawt.

The logical fallacy being used here is the "fallacy of relative privation" (also known as the "not as bad as" fallacy). This fallacy occurs when someone dismisses an argument or issue by claiming it is insignificant compared to other, supposedly more pressing problems. Responding to valid concerns about women's privacy, safety and fair play in sports by claiming they are "minor problems" sidesteps the actual argument. It avoids engaging with the specific concerns (e.g., safety, privacy, or fairness) by redirecting attention to the perceived scale of the issue rather than addressing its merits or implications. This tactic minimizes valid concerns without providing a reasoned counterargument. Putting aside everything I've read and seen online, there have been many times I've had discussions with women I knew and didn't know who expressed disagreement with "transwomen" being in women's private spaces, as well as playing in women's sports. Yes, there are women who claim not to care very much or at all about these concerns, but that doesn't make the whole issue "minor." Transgenderism is just gender dysphoria. It's gaslighting ourselves into believing or doing our best to believe we are the opposite sex. There is no such thing. It's a fantasy, and there's absolutely no good moral reason why women should have to give up their female-only private spaces. Many women are significantly uncomfortable with the presence of a man. It does not matter how well they "pass" as a "woman." They are men and they have no right to be in women's spaces, or compete against women in female-only sports. There's a very good reason sports are often separated by sex. "Transwomen" in female prisons and prison cells is also a serious issue. Just because a man presents himself in a feminine way, or wears clothing typically associated with women, doesn't mean he has any right to make women feel uncomfortable by being in their private space. There are too many good reasons women object to males being in their changing rooms, shared public bathrooms (INCLUDING those with full, top-to-bottom toilet stalls), prisons, rape shelters, lesbian bars, etc. I also don't want any "transmen" in men's changing rooms or shared public bathrooms. I don't want a woman being concerned about me being in a private room with her. I don't want to be falsely accused of assault or sexual harassment if I don't have to be. If I ever see a transwoman entering a female private space, I will sternly ask him not to go in. I will scream at him if I have to.

I'll say this: aside from family, I refuse to be friends with anyone who thinks it's okay for non-citizens of America to enter the country illegally. The only reason people claim to support this idea is because they have a savior complex that takes over their ability to think logically about essential boundaries and fairness within a civilized society. Just because you want a perfect utopia does not mean you can have one anytime soon. If a perfectly balanced, utopian society were to exist, humanity would have to evolve psychologically to the point where that could somehow happen. The same applies to transgender ideologies' claim that "transwomen are women, so therefore, anyone who claims to be a woman—including males—can enter women's private spaces or compete against women in their sports." This bypasses objective reality to the point where it denies people—especially women—their safety, privacy, and fair play in sports.

I did notice my alter ego today, haha. His comment’s innocent and hopeful, while mine’s doubtful and sarcastic.

The DOJ's evidence suggests Tim Pool was unaware of Russian funding behind Tenet Media. There's no definitive proof he knowingly acted as a "Russian propagandist." If Cenk Uygur were funded by Hamas, I'd still listen to him if I found any value in doing so, but I only find him amusing, because he's very much a performer who caters to his audience instead of valuing critical thinking and objective truth.

"White privilege" in 2025 America is a ridiculous concept. Pretty privilege is real, but you don't see anyone complaining too much about that. Why? Because most folks understand that we can only change so much about ourselves to be more or less attractive to others. Every legal citizen in America who has a functioning brain can literally do almost anything. The only thing "holding them back" is that which they perceive as doing so. For example, usually it's their friends and family repeating unhelpful narratives, or it's how they see themselves, which isn't in a way that encourages them to face challenges in order to succeed in life. The problem many Democratic voters have is that they have a savior complex, and those that don't spend enough time around normal people (people who use common sense) may develop a white savior complex, because they've become more prejudiced than normal, thanks to watching leftist legacy media, listening to their Democratic-voting friends and family, or reading silly "antiracist" (neoracist) books like a neighborhood friend I grew up with was reading when I last saw him in a local coffee shop that sells really good coffee beans sourced from non-whites in other parts of the world.

Listen to Tim Pool. He uses critical thinking, unlike most.

Yeah, end the war, get the hostages back, then take the IDF out of GAZA, that'll solve everything. Hamas will behave themselves from then on...

To expect cops to be reasonable in a highly crime-ridden area is silly. Most of the time racism is just prejudice, and everyone is prejudiced in some way because racial patterns are real and as social humans we are programmed to judge others by looks in some sort of way before we dissolve those judgments through connection, time and trust.

I don't care about being called anything, it's just fun to pretend I'm going to be criticized for being honest about my observations and relations with black folks growing up in public schools.

The enlightened are anomalies.