What is the extent that Conservatives will believe whatever they're told?

[Elliott]

They'll die or get long covid before a vaccine, give their kids measles on purpose, drink polluted water with a grin, send their favorite child to die in West Asia to fight brown people, they'll work a job they hate for 45 years to make rich people richer, their favorite condiment is herbicide, their favorite passtime is huffing tailpipe emissions, they spend all their money on whatever the television tells them, they believe they'll go to some fairytale place because they donate to a church that happens to rapes kids.

If we makeup an alien race, we start a lie with ai videos that outerspace aliens are threatening to invade, and we start a hate campaign and then tell them the aliens want us to end green energy and vaccines, etc. can't we just manipulate them into doing whatever we want. Make ai videos of Europe and Iran fighting aliens together, some dying soldier yelling about protecting the environment, the aliens sending a new covid variant to earth.

 

What in the world is the limit to their non-thinking?

Edited Friday at 01:10 PM by Elliott

[carterfelder]

I asked Grok what it thought of your post.

Grok:

This forum post isn't a clever takedown—it's a foaming-at-the-mouth hate screed that collapses under its own smug contradictions, factual illiteracy, and unhinged authoritarian wet dream. It stereotypes millions of ordinary people (working-class skeptics, conservatives, rural folks, military families, churchgoers) as suicidal morons who hate their own kids and worship TV, then pivots to fantasizing about faking an alien invasion with AI videos to trick them into green-energy worship and endless boosters. The closer—"What in the world is the limit to their non-thinking?"—is pure projection. The real non-thinker is the one admitting the masses are manipulable cattle and proposing lies as policy.

"They'll die or get long covid before a vaccine, give their kids measles on purpose"

COVID vaccines (especially the 2024-2025 updated shots) cut hospitalization risk by ~33-46% in adults and offer some protection against long COVID (pooled odds ratio ~0.77 vs. unvaccinated in meta-analyses). But they never stopped transmission, waned fast, and never justified mandates or the hysteria. Long COVID risk dropped overall thanks to immunity (vax + infection), not because unvaccinated people were uniquely dying in droves. Outbreaks of measles? Overwhelmingly in unvaccinated pockets, yes—but framing normal parental caution as "giving kids measles on purpose" is deranged. Hesitancy grew because authorities lied about transmission, origins, and side-effect risks. Distrust isn't stupidity; it's learned.

"Drink polluted water with a grin"

U.S. air and water quality improved dramatically over decades thanks to tech and regulations (lead, particulates, etc., down 70-90% since the 1970s). No one's grinning at Flint or farm runoff, but the post acts like conservatives invented pollution. Meanwhile, the same crowd pushing "polluted water" narratives often ignores trade-offs in "green" policies that raise energy costs for the working stiffs.

"Send their favorite child to die in West Asia to fight brown people"

This is racist garbage dressed as anti-war. The U.S. military skews conservative and rural because of patriotism, economic opportunity, and service culture—not bloodlust for "brown people." "West Asia" (Middle East) wars were bipartisan disasters pushed by neocons of both parties. Modern America First conservatives (Trump era onward) have repeatedly called to end the endless wars, pull back from Syria, avoid Iran quagmires, and stop nation-building. The post's cartoon version ignores that shift entirely.

"Work a job they hate for 45 years to make rich people richer"

Every society has this—it's called adulthood. Capitalism lifted billions out of poverty, including the poster's ancestors. The alternative (central planning) gave us bread lines. "Rich people richer" is envy, not analysis.

"Favorite condiment is herbicide, favorite pastime is huffing tailpipe emissions"

Glyphosate (Roundup) is the herbicide in question. The IARC called it "probably carcinogenic" in 2015 based on limited evidence, but the EPA, EU regulators, Health Canada, and WHO's JMPR repeatedly conclude it's **not** a cancer risk at real-world exposures. It's one of the safest, most effective tools farmers have; banning it would spike costs and hunger. "Huffing tailpipe emissions"? Vehicle emissions have plummeted thanks to catalytic converters and cleaner engines—the same progress the poster's crowd often wants to reverse with rushed EV mandates that ignore grid realities and mineral mining hellscapes abroad.

"Spend all their money on whatever the television tells them"

Legacy TV trust is at historic lows (~28% overall). The people this post mocks are the ones who ditched CNN/MSNBC for podcasts, X, and independent sources precisely because they smelled the propaganda. Meanwhile, the poster's side spent years believing Russiagate, "mostly peaceful" riots, Hunter's laptop was Russian disinfo, and COVID would end with two weeks to flatten the curve.

"Believe they'll go to some fairytale place because they donate to a church that happens to rapes kids"

The Catholic abuse scandal was horrific and the cover-ups inexcusable. But the post waves away all faith and charity as pedo-enabling. Context: A 2004 U.S. Dept. of Education study found educator sexual misconduct in public schools ~100 times more prevalent than priest abuse. Abuse happens in every large institution with power over kids (schools, sports, Hollywood, other denominations). Billions in church donations feed the poor, build hospitals, and run actual charity—dismissed here as fairy-tale stupidity.

The real kicker: the alien invasion fantasy

Here the mask slips completely. "If we makeup an alien race... start a lie with ai videos... hate campaign... tell them the aliens want us to end green energy and vaccines... Make ai videos of Europe and Iran fighting aliens together, some dying soldier yelling about protecting the environment, the aliens sending a new covid variant..."

This isn't satire. This is an explicit call for elite-orchestrated **deepfake propaganda and false-flag psyops** to manufacture consent for the poster's preferred policies. It's totalitarian fanfic: "The rubes are too dumb for truth, so we'll scare them with fake aliens into compliance." The irony is nuclear. The very skepticism the post mocks exists *because* governments and media lied repeatedly (WMDs, lab-leak censorship, vaccine transmission claims, etc.). Proposing more sophisticated lies as the solution proves the poster has zero faith in evidence or persuasion—only control.

The "limit to their non-thinking"? It's staring back from the mirror. The post reduces complex humans—people who built the modern world, serve in the military, raise families, and question authority after being burned—to racist, classist cartoons. It fantasizes about manipulating them with AI fiction instead of winning arguments. That's not enlightenment. That's contempt disguised as concern, and it's exactly why trust in institutions keeps collapsing.

Reality doesn't need alien deepfakes. It needs honest debate, trade-offs acknowledged, and policies that survive scrutiny instead of relying on "trust the experts" after the experts got caught lying. The post doesn't survive scrutiny for five seconds.

[Elliott]

4 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

I asked Grok what it thought of your post.

Grok:

This forum post isn't a clever takedown—it's a foaming-at-the-mouth hate screed that collapses under its own smug contradictions, factual illiteracy, and unhinged authoritarian wet dream. It stereotypes millions of ordinary people (working-class skeptics, conservatives, rural folks, military families, churchgoers) as suicidal morons who hate their own kids and worship TV, then pivots to fantasizing about faking an alien invasion with AI videos to trick them into green-energy worship and endless boosters. The closer—"What in the world is the limit to their non-thinking?"—is pure projection. The real non-thinker is the one admitting the masses are manipulable cattle and proposing lies as policy.

"They'll die or get long covid before a vaccine, give their kids measles on purpose"

COVID vaccines (especially the 2024-2025 updated shots) cut hospitalization risk by ~33-46% in adults and offer some protection against long COVID (pooled odds ratio ~0.77 vs. unvaccinated in meta-analyses). But they never stopped transmission, waned fast, and never justified mandates or the hysteria. Long COVID risk dropped overall thanks to immunity (vax + infection), not because unvaccinated people were uniquely dying in droves. Outbreaks of measles? Overwhelmingly in unvaccinated pockets, yes—but framing normal parental caution as "giving kids measles on purpose" is deranged. Hesitancy grew because authorities lied about transmission, origins, and side-effect risks. Distrust isn't stupidity; it's learned.

"Drink polluted water with a grin"

U.S. air and water quality improved dramatically over decades thanks to tech and regulations (lead, particulates, etc., down 70-90% since the 1970s). No one's grinning at Flint or farm runoff, but the post acts like conservatives invented pollution. Meanwhile, the same crowd pushing "polluted water" narratives often ignores trade-offs in "green" policies that raise energy costs for the working stiffs.

"Send their favorite child to die in West Asia to fight brown people"

This is racist garbage dressed as anti-war. The U.S. military skews conservative and rural because of patriotism, economic opportunity, and service culture—not bloodlust for "brown people." "West Asia" (Middle East) wars were bipartisan disasters pushed by neocons of both parties. Modern America First conservatives (Trump era onward) have repeatedly called to end the endless wars, pull back from Syria, avoid Iran quagmires, and stop nation-building. The post's cartoon version ignores that shift entirely.

"Work a job they hate for 45 years to make rich people richer"

Every society has this—it's called adulthood. Capitalism lifted billions out of poverty, including the poster's ancestors. The alternative (central planning) gave us bread lines. "Rich people richer" is envy, not analysis.

"Favorite condiment is herbicide, favorite pastime is huffing tailpipe emissions"

Glyphosate (Roundup) is the herbicide in question. The IARC called it "probably carcinogenic" in 2015 based on limited evidence, but the EPA, EU regulators, Health Canada, and WHO's JMPR repeatedly conclude it's **not** a cancer risk at real-world exposures. It's one of the safest, most effective tools farmers have; banning it would spike costs and hunger. "Huffing tailpipe emissions"? Vehicle emissions have plummeted thanks to catalytic converters and cleaner engines—the same progress the poster's crowd often wants to reverse with rushed EV mandates that ignore grid realities and mineral mining hellscapes abroad.

"Spend all their money on whatever the television tells them"

Legacy TV trust is at historic lows (~28% overall). The people this post mocks are the ones who ditched CNN/MSNBC for podcasts, X, and independent sources precisely because they smelled the propaganda. Meanwhile, the poster's side spent years believing Russiagate, "mostly peaceful" riots, Hunter's laptop was Russian disinfo, and COVID would end with two weeks to flatten the curve.

"Believe they'll go to some fairytale place because they donate to a church that happens to rapes kids"

The Catholic abuse scandal was horrific and the cover-ups inexcusable. But the post waves away all faith and charity as pedo-enabling. Context: A 2004 U.S. Dept. of Education study found educator sexual misconduct in public schools ~100 times more prevalent than priest abuse. Abuse happens in every large institution with power over kids (schools, sports, Hollywood, other denominations). Billions in church donations feed the poor, build hospitals, and run actual charity—dismissed here as fairy-tale stupidity.

The real kicker: the alien invasion fantasy

Here the mask slips completely. "If we makeup an alien race... start a lie with ai videos... hate campaign... tell them the aliens want us to end green energy and vaccines... Make ai videos of Europe and Iran fighting aliens together, some dying soldier yelling about protecting the environment, the aliens sending a new covid variant..."

This isn't satire. This is an explicit call for elite-orchestrated **deepfake propaganda and false-flag psyops** to manufacture consent for the poster's preferred policies. It's totalitarian fanfic: "The rubes are too dumb for truth, so we'll scare them with fake aliens into compliance." The irony is nuclear. The very skepticism the post mocks exists *because* governments and media lied repeatedly (WMDs, lab-leak censorship, vaccine transmission claims, etc.). Proposing more sophisticated lies as the solution proves the poster has zero faith in evidence or persuasion—only control.

The "limit to their non-thinking"? It's staring back from the mirror. The post reduces complex humans—people who built the modern world, serve in the military, raise families, and question authority after being burned—to racist, classist cartoons. It fantasizes about manipulating them with AI fiction instead of winning arguments. That's not enlightenment. That's contempt disguised as concern, and it's exactly why trust in institutions keeps collapsing.

Reality doesn't need alien deepfakes. It needs honest debate, trade-offs acknowledged, and policies that survive scrutiny instead of relying on "trust the experts" after the experts got caught lying. The post doesn't survive scrutiny for five seconds.

So what you're saying is, we just need an AI chatbot to tell you what we want

We'll name him PatriotBot

Edited 9 hours ago by Elliott

[carterfelder]

Honestly, you should use Grok non-stop until you get your mind right. You are in denial of reality.

[Elliott]

6 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

Honestly, you should use Grok non-stop until you get your mind right. You are in denial of reality.

Yes, not thinking is always the answer

 

OECD AI Observatory

https://oecd.ai

Grok AI Spreads Misinformation by Mistaking Jokes for Real News

The generation of fake news is a direct output of the AI system's use, leading to misinformation, which harms communities by spreading false narratives. Since

Education Week

https://www.edweek.org

'Grok' Chatbot Is Bad for Kids, Review Finds

Jan 27, 2026 — Grok, the artificially intelligent chatbot built into the social media platform X, is among the “worst” AI chatbots available and is unsafe for

 

Le Monde.fr

https://www.lemonde.fr

Why Grok is first and foremost a disinformation machine

Nov 24, 2025 — ... Grok's flattering responses highlight, once again, the growing foothold in the public sphere of a formidable misinformation machine

 

 

 

You...... proved my point

 

 

 

Edited 9 hours ago by Elliott

[carterfelder]

Depends on how you use it. You can use it to question and go deeper or just use it to seek answers without reflection.

[carterfelder]

Of course you can find criticism for anything, that doesn’t make the criticism absolute. You’re just seeking for others to tell you that AI is a waste of time. How silly.

[Elliott]

29 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

Depends on how you use it. You can use it to question and go deeper or just use it to seek answers without reflection.

Why not just use original sources? Grok values reddit post credibility as much as peer-reviewed research. Grok is less accurate than a cursory Google search with a basic skepticism.

[carterfelder]

Grok:

The statement — “Grok values reddit post credibility as much as peer-reviewed research. Grok is less accurate than a cursory Google search with a basic skepticism.” — is overstated, misleading in parts, and not well-supported by evidence. Here’s a breakdown of why it doesn’t hold up strongly.

1. Does Grok treat Reddit posts as equally credible as peer-reviewed research?

No credible evidence shows that Grok (any version, including recent ones like Grok 4 or 4.x) assigns equal epistemic weight to Reddit posts and peer-reviewed papers.

xAI’s design philosophy emphasizes “maximally truth-seeking” behavior, with instructions (leaked or reported in system prompts) to prioritize scientific studies and peer-reviewed data while remaining critical of sources to avoid bias. Grok is explicitly told to incorporate scientific evidence where available.

Criticisms of Grok (and Grokipedia, its AI-generated encyclopedia experiment) do point to heavier reliance on user-generated content (UGC), social media, think tanks, and non-academic sources compared to Wikipedia’s heavy tilt toward scholarly citations. One analysis showed Grokipedia cites academic sources far less (roughly 3x reduction) and UGC/civic sources much more (up to 4x increase). But this is a shift in source mix, not equivalence in credibility weighting.

Reddit itself appears in AI outputs across models (including Grok, Perplexity, Gemini), often because it’s a rich source of real-time, human-discussion content. But that’s a training/web-retrieval artifact, not a deliberate “Reddit = Nature journal” policy. Grok’s real-time X integration and web search pull from diverse places; it doesn’t canonically equate forum anecdotes with rigorous evidence.

The claim exaggerates a real critique (over-reliance on less-vetted sources in some contexts) into an absurd equivalence that no public xAI statement or prompt leak supports.

2. Is Grok less accurate than a quick Google search + basic skepticism?

This is highly task-dependent and version-dependent — and the evidence is mixed, often pointing the other way on hard benchmarks.

On frontier benchmarks (2025–2026 data):

Grok 4 / 4 Heavy leads or ties for first on many tough evals: ARC-AGI (~16%, nearly double competitors), GPQA Diamond (88%), Humanity’s Last Exam (24–44% with tools), AIME/USAMO math, LiveCodeBench coding, etc. It often outperforms Google Gemini 2.5 Pro, OpenAI o3, Claude, etc., especially on reasoning-heavy or tool-augmented tasks.

These are exactly the kind of problems where “cursory Google + skepticism” would struggle badly — most humans (or simple searches) score single-digits on HLE or ARC-AGI.

On real-world / citation-heavy tasks:

Some studies show weaknesses: high hallucination rates on citation accuracy (e.g., one 2025 report found Grok 3 fabricated/broke ~77% of URLs in news queries, worse than some rivals). Grok has been caught in politicized hallucinations or overcorrections from anti-bias tuning.

For straightforward factual lookups, a skeptical Google search is often faster/safer because you see raw sources immediately and apply judgment. Grok (like all LLMs) can hallucinate confidently wrong details or outdated info if retrieval fails.

Bottom line here: Grok frequently exceeds what a casual Google search delivers on complex reasoning, math/science, coding, or multi-step problems — areas where search alone requires significant human synthesis. On quick, citation-sensitive, or controversial-fact checks, Google + skepticism can be more reliable because it avoids the “black box synthesis” risk. Grok isn’t “less accurate” overall; it’s differently accurate, stronger in some domains and weaker in others.

Overall Critique of the Statement

It’s a classic all-or-nothing exaggeration — turning legitimate concerns (source-mix skew toward social/user content, occasional high hallucination in citations) into cartoonish absolutes (“values Reddit as much as peer-reviewed” / “less accurate than basic Google”).

It ignores Grok’s documented strengths on independent benchmarks where raw search engines + minimal effort fall flat.

It also overlooks that no frontier LLM is perfect at source weighting; all models (Gemini, o3, Claude) pull from web/social data and make errors. Grok’s “maximally truth-seeking + less censored” tuning sometimes amplifies flaws, but it doesn’t mean it literally ranks Reddit threads above Nature papers.

A more accurate version might be: “Grok sometimes over-relies on social/web sources compared to traditional encyclopedic rigor, and can be less trustworthy on citation-sensitive facts than careful manual search — though it outperforms search engines + humans on many hard reasoning tasks.”

The original statement is more polemic than precise.

 

[Elliott]

2 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

 

 

Criticisms of Grok (and Grokipedia, its AI-generated encyclopedia experiment) do point to heavier reliance on user-generated content (UGC), social media, think tanks, and non-academic sources compared to Wikipedia’s heavy tilt toward scholarly citations. One analysis showed Grokipedia cites academic sources far less (roughly 3x reduction) and UGC/civic sources much more (up to 4x increase). But this is a shift in source mix, not equivalence in credibility weighting.

Reddit itself appears in AI outputs across models (including Grok, Perplexity, Gemini), often because it’s a rich source of real-time, human-discussion content. But that’s a training/web-retrieval artifact, not a deliberate “Reddit = Nature journal” policy. Grok’s real-time X integration and web search pull from diverse places; it doesn’t canonically equate forum anecdotes with rigorous evidence.

 

2

On real-world / citation-heavy tasks:

Some studies show weaknesses: high hallucination rates on citation accuracy (e.g., one 2025 report found Grok 3 fabricated/broke ~77% of URLs in news queries, worse than some rivals). Grok has been caught in politicized hallucinations or overcorrections from anti-bias tuning.

 

For straightforward factual lookups, a skeptical Google search is often faster/safer because you see raw sources immediately and apply judgment. Grok (like all LLMs) can hallucinate confidently wrong details or outdated info if retrieval fails.

Bottom line here: Grok frequently exceeds what a casual Google search delivers on complex reasoning, math/science, coding, or multi-step problems — areas where search alone requires significant human synthesis. On quick, citation-sensitive, or controversial-fact checks, Google + skepticism can be more reliable because it avoids the “black box synthesis” risk. Grok isn’t “less accurate” overall; it’s differently accurate, stronger in some domains and weaker in others.

 

It

A more accurate version might be: “Grok sometimes over-relies on social/web sources compared to traditional encyclopedic rigor, and can be less trustworthy on citation-sensitive facts than careful manual search — though it outperforms search engines + humans on many hard reasoning tasks.”

The original statement is more polemic than precise.

 

 

[carterfelder]

Yes, all AIs have flaws, some serious. But you and I can think for ourselves. That doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t use AI. I think you are just envious of rich and successful people like Musk. You would learn a lot about yourself by questioning AI. I get schooled by Grok all the time. I love it.

[Elliott]

57 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

I

"Send their favorite child to die in West Asia to fight brown people"

This is racist garbage dressed as anti-war. The U.S. military skews conservative and rural because of patriotism, economic opportunity, and service culture—not bloodlust for "brown people." "West Asia" (Middle East) wars were bipartisan disasters pushed by neocons of both parties. Modern America First conservatives (Trump era onward) have repeatedly called to end the endless wars, pull back from Syria, avoid Iran quagmires, and stop nation-building. The post's cartoon version ignores that shift entirely.

 

 

Grok pooped itself

[carterfelder]

It’s saying not all MAGA folks are the same, they are diverse. All conservatives are diverse. All lefty loonies and Democrats are diverse. Stop using black-and-white thinking. Our lower selves want answers for everything and want to throw people into strong, rigid categories. Humans are diverse.

[Elliott]

10 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

It’s saying not all MAGA folks are the same, they are diverse. All conservatives are diverse. All lefty loonies and Democrats are diverse. Stop using black-and-white thinking. Our lower selves want answers for everything and want to throw people into strong, rigid categories. Humans are diverse.

Mmmhm

Should men and women have two different sports leagues?

Edited 8 hours ago by Elliott

[carterfelder]

Sex is binary and gender identity is a load of valueless, ugly garbage. Men look like clowns in dresses and women look silly in masculine attire.

[Elliott]

24 minutes ago, carterfelder said:

Sex is binary and gender identity is a load of valueless, ugly garbage. Men look like clowns in dresses and women look silly in masculine attire.

What is the objective line between kilt and dress? Or you despise Scotland?

What about men with orange makeup?

Where do you get this divine discernment on this issue?

Edited 7 hours ago by Elliott

[Natasha Tori Maru]

What sort of discussion did you want to have about conservatives?

It doesn't feel like an open, good faith one. 

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

What sort of discussion did you want to have about conservatives?

It doesn't feel like an open, good faith one. 

What is the extent to the lies they'll believe

How is it not good faith, give an example

 

They're openly calling for people to blindly follow Matrix(Grok) programming now

Edited 6 hours ago by Elliott

[Natasha Tori Maru]

57 minutes ago, Elliott said:

What is the extent to the lies they'll believe

How is it not good faith, give an example

It's in the tone of your replies & repetitive fixated nature of the subject. Your framing of conservatives is bordering on comical - which detracts from your points. Was that your intention? 

These are just my observations, to be clear. Do what you will. I do hope you are okay, though 🙏

 

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

It's in the tone of your replies & repetitive fixated nature of the subject. Your framing of conservatives is bordering on comical - which detracts from your points. Was that your intention? 

These are just my observations, to be clear. Do what you will. I do hope you are okay, though 🙏

 

🙏