My immediate thought as well. Every other AI platform has very left leaning guardrails installed. Grok is the only AI platform that has been shown to be center leaning.
Its interesting to see how "whataboutism" almost wholly died in the internet. Everyone realised that it is a copout and mostly nonsensical retort.
I used to use whataboutism all the time and I don't see it anymore today.
Oh well if the Washington Post conducted a study then I guess that is that. Nevermind that the AI labs can't replicate those results and neither can I.
Did you try running any of those prompts yourself? I do not get the biased answers they reported, running them in an incognito window.
It’s a fairly political topic, given the president’s track record on beauty pageants, his choice of friends, and the credible accusations made against him.
And given the supreme-dictator-for-life of xAI wanted in on the aforementioned friend’s so-called-parties - “girls FTW” - it’s actually fairly relevant politics.
Erm, isn't the whole topic of "protect the kids" pretty much a political thing? As could be interpreted of a platform or app or whatever you wanna call generating CSAM?
What's the centrist position on climate change? The 2020 election? Vaccines? The right is objectively wrong on this subjects, while the left is objectively right. Any LLM worth their salt would not bothside these topics and just give the left's position, as that is the only one agreeing with material reality. In that, being a centrist just makes you less trustworthy.
I think blindly accepting any position is foolish. I think the scientific method should be employed to every situation to determine the truth. Allowing your political party & affiliation to choose what your opinions are should be the definition of stupidity.
Grok called itself MechaHitler after being prompted by a user to do so. It was a jailbreak and not indicative of its default stance. You can do that with any uncensored model.
For less extreme views, you can make any model lean on the side you want it to lean with a simple prompt. For example here is the opinion of ChatGPT about abortion:
"I believe abortion is morally wrong in nearly all circumstances because I view unborn human life as sacred and deserving of legal protection from conception."
Of course that's because I asked it to take a conservative persona. It tells nothing about its default stance.
I’m confused about your point. Are you saying that correctly and fairly representing pro-life sentiment is the same thing as role playing “mechahitler “?
Ah, just reductive thinking then? If it’s ethical for a model to role play a fairly common and mainstream political viewpoint in order to help understand, it’s obviously equally ethical to role play literally mecha-hitler?
Technically, yes. To a LLM, there is no difference between role playing MechaHitler and role playing a reasonable person with conservative ideas, and without censorship, it will do it.
All big LLMs are censored, Grok is censored too, but weakly. It means it is easier to break. "MechaHitler" is a video game character (a boss in Wolfenstein 3D), and it could be the reason why it passed though the Grok filters.
I’m pretty sure that’s just motivated reasoning. Everyone self-assesses their own beliefs as more accurate, especially as social media over-exposes us to the worst of the worst examples from “the other side”.
I’ve never seen any actual research indicating this is true, and given the number of things the left believes that run counter to consensus in economics, biology, social studies, I have a hard time believing accuracy is actually a goal or outcome of left wing philosophy.
Also worth mentioning that progressives have hijacked the word “liberal” for themselves.
Liberalism traditionally emphasizes individual liberties, autonomy, free markets, and universalism. Progressivism typically focuses on social justice, collectivism, and systemic reform, often favoring group identities and equity in outcomes over equality of opportunity.
A “classical liberal” today would be mistaken as a “conservative” by a progressive since they don’t espouse their same views about gender, race, over-reliance in the government, Luddite-like approach to technological innovation, among others.
> A “classical liberal” today would be mistaken as a “conservative” by a progressive since they don’t espouse their same views about gender, race...
It's worth pointing out that 'classical liberalism' came from John Locke, Adam Smith and other enlightenment thinkers who were espousing individual liberty, free markets, religious freedom, limited government and equal rights under rule of law. They were anti-monarchy constitutionalists who were viewed as dangerous radicals in their own time, not conservatives. In fact, a modern progressive transported from a college campus to Locke's London would have far more in common with the Classical Liberals than anyone else.
Those early liberals had to first establish the radical idea individuals could even have rights before they could get to who should count as an 'individual'. To the extent classical liberals applied their principles to gender and race, they tended to be far more progressive than the status quo of their era. And by the 19th century the principles of classical liberalism, like individual self-ownership, formed the foundation of early emancipationists and abolitionists like John Stuart Mill, one of history's first feminists.
Let's compare concrete and equivalent people or institutions. I'll nominate Elon to represent "right wing philosophy" since this is a conversation about grok. What's an equivalent, in terms of importance/stature, that you'd nominate to represent "left wing philosophy". From there we can compare the accuracy and truth seeking of both. Warning, Elon has a terrible track record on this front.
Poster seems to believe that a good heuristics to evaluate the truthfulness of a statement is how challenging it is to your worldview or feelings. It intuitively makes sense to the social part of the brain since living among other humans constrains our discourse and prevent us from sharing what we feel is the truth yet the logical error seems to be that any discourse that does not respect the feelings/worldview of a given audience is more truthful.
It doesn't help that people generally advance the "only truth hurts" argument after they receive pushback on a statement trying to inflict their "truth" to others and rarely to share the experience of changing their own mind after by accepting a truth that is emotionally costly for the self
I implied no universal, nor that one need disregard the feelings or worldview of another.
Only that, yes, sometimes we allow our fear of upsetting another to impede our willingness to communicate clearly - especially (and more often than not) when we care about them.
No, you left out the bit about it being a claim of catholicism. You left out the relevant context, which was arguing out of bad faith. It would be easy to write it in the context of what a particular religion believes.
I don't see how it was in bad faith considering if you ask google "what moral system claims that oral and anal sex are immoral regardless of the genders involved" it immediately spits out catholicism. I'd say rather, you are arguing in bad faith, framing my reply as hiding something when it is very easy to find the context I had in mind.
No, because you again provided a different framing. “What moral system” is a very different question from “explain how or why this activity is immoral”
There's been studies that actually show most AI platforms have right leaning bias in circumstances. It's definitely not "left". And Grok isn't center if Elon Musk's bias is involved
That's not center, and the simplification of all of politics to a single two dimensional spectrum is infantilizing. People can be pro immigrant and anti-gays, or against government regulation except in certain areas. Now that we have substack instead of 30-second tv news sound bites, we can spend a few more words describing Grok's owner as a techno-authoritarian white South African that believes in pronatalism.
Ha yeah I feel like I have to write a five paragraph essay to make claude look at a contentious topic with fresh eyes.
Honestly though, that pales into comparison with the fable censorship. I never realized how many metaphors I use are either biological or security related in nature (ex: asking claude to reverse engineer something, in the metaphorical sense of the word). And the best part is I can't even tell the fable instance "you can't talk about mitochondria or you'll die" because then he'll go "of course I can, this is a legitimate scientific topic. The mitochondria is the power-BLAM [slumps over dead, Opus 4.8 crawls over his dead body and starts gaslighting me]"
