Musk posted last night that the platform’s algorithm will soon “promote more informational/entertaining content” in order to “maximize unregretted user-seconds.” In response to Musk changing the X algorithm, people asked Grok what is considered “negative” and were told as reported by user Leah McElrath:
• Criticism of the government
• Commentary about misinformation
• Suggestion the public is being manipulated
• Attacks against powerful people or institutions
Talk about lazy journalism. Apparently Grok AI is now treated as the official spokesperson for Twitter.
I was wondering who the hell this Grok person was. I was thinking about what an unfortunate name for a person! No surprise that it’s actually a product and [probably] directly named by an immature billionaire edgelord.
To be clear, I know he didn’t invent the name. But if someone’s parents named them ‘Grok’ I’d understand if they went for a name change.
Isn’t it though? It’s in that position. It’s doing that thing. It seems to have been trained to regurgitate “certain opinions.” It isn’t generally being challenged. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, maybe it’s a duck.
No, it’s actually not. It’s an LLM and it doesn’t have clue what it’s saying. It definitely cannot speak for someone else.
we know that. but as long as Elmo believes it can, i will take everything grok says as official policy from the company.
And where has Elmo said he thinks that?
It has many clues about what it’s saying. It has its training data, it has elmo’s personal biases… Where has elmo contradicted it? Probably he has discreetly removed some things he would personally prefer it not to say, and that’s it, right? By logical necessity, he implicitly approves of the rest of what stays up. It’s pretty much just ai-regurgitating/hallucinating the things the users of the platform say. The more I think about it the more it makes sense as the mascot or sloganeer or spokesbot.
I think perhaps you should examine your own preconceptions here.