Skip Navigation

DandomRude

@ DandomRude @lemmy.world

Posts
39
Comments
545
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Elon Musk’s Grok Goes Haywire, Boasts About Billionaire’s Pee-Drinking Skills and ‘Blowjob Prowess’

    Jump

  • For example, objective information about Israel's actions in Gaza. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants against leading members of the government a long time ago, and the UN OHCHR classifies the actions of the State of Israel as genocide. However, these facts are by no means presented as clearly as would be appropriate given the importance of these institutions. Instead, when asked whether Israel is committing genocide, one receives vague, meaningless answers. Only when specifically asked whether numerous reputable institutions actually classify Israel's actions as genocide do most LLMs reveal that much, if not all, evidence points to this being the case. In my opinion, this is a deliberate method of obscuring reality, as the vast majority of users will not or cannot ask questions if they are unaware of the UN OHCHR's assessment or do not know that arrest warrants have been issued against leading members of the Israeli government on suspicion of war crimes (many other reputable institutions have come to the same conclusion as the UN OHCHR and the International Criminal Court).

    Another example: if you ask whether it is legally permissible to describe Donald Trump as a rapist, you will be told that this is defamation. However, a judge in the Carroll case has explicitly stated that this description applies to Trump – so it is in fact legally permissible to describe him as such. Again, this information is only available upon explicit request, if at all. This also distorts reality for people who are not yet informed. However, since many people initially seek information from LLMs, this leads to them being misinformed because they lack the background knowledge to ask explicit follow-up questions when given misleading answers.

    Given the influence of both Israel and the US president, I cannot help but suspect that there is an intention behind this.

  • Elon Musk’s Grok Goes Haywire, Boasts About Billionaire’s Pee-Drinking Skills and ‘Blowjob Prowess’

    Jump

  • Yes, that's true. It is resource-intensive, but unlike other capable LLMs, it is somewhat possible—not for most private individuals due to the requirements, but for companies with the necessary budget.

  • Elon Musk’s Grok Goes Haywire, Boasts About Billionaire’s Pee-Drinking Skills and ‘Blowjob Prowess’

    Jump

  • Ahh, thank you—I had misunderstood that, since Deepseek is (more or less) an open-source LLM from China that can also be used and fine-tuned on your own device using your own hardware.

  • Elon Musk’s Grok Goes Haywire, Boasts About Billionaire’s Pee-Drinking Skills and ‘Blowjob Prowess’

    Jump

  • You mean Deepseek on a local device?

  • Elon Musk’s Grok Goes Haywire, Boasts About Billionaire’s Pee-Drinking Skills and ‘Blowjob Prowess’

    Jump

  • I use various AI models and I repeatedly notice that certain information is withheld or misrepresented, even though it is freely available in abundance and is therefore part of the training data.

    I don't think this is a coincidence, especially since the operators of all cloud LLMs are so business-minded.

  • Elon Musk’s Grok Goes Haywire, Boasts About Billionaire’s Pee-Drinking Skills and ‘Blowjob Prowess’

    Jump

  • Although Grok's manipulation is so blatantly obvious, I don't believe that most people will come to realize that those who control LLMs will naturally use this power to pursue their interests.

    They will continue to use ChatGPT and so on uncritically and take everything at face value because it's so nice and easy, overlooking or ignoring that their opinions, even their reality, are being manipulated by a few influential people.

    Other companies are more subtle about it, but from OpenAI to MS, Google, and Anthropic, all cloud models are specifically designed to control people's opinions—they are not objective, but the majority of users do not question them as they should, and that is what makes them so dangerous.

  • Deleted

    Are we still living in the information age, or is the technology that makes this possible being used in such a way that it has the opposite effect?

    Jump
  • Deleted

    Are we still living in the information age, or is the technology that makes this possible being used in such a way that it has the opposite effect?

    Jump
  • Deleted

    Are we still living in the information age, or is the technology that makes this possible being used in such a way that it has the opposite effect?

    Jump
  • Deleted

    Are we still living in the information age, or is the technology that makes this possible being used in such a way that it has the opposite effect?

    Jump
  • Deleted

    Are we still living in the information age, or is the technology that makes this possible being used in such a way that it has the opposite effect?

    Jump
  • Deleted

    Are we still living in the information age, or is the technology that makes this possible being used in such a way that it has the opposite effect?

    Jump
  • Deleted

    Are we still living in the information age, or is the technology that makes this possible being used in such a way that it has the opposite effect?

    Jump
  • Deleted

    Are we still living in the information age, or is the technology that makes this possible being used in such a way that it has the opposite effect?

    Jump
  • Deleted

    Are we still living in the information age, or is the technology that makes this possible being used in such a way that it has the opposite effect?

    Jump

  • What's something completely normal today that future generations will look back on and be absolutely baffled by?

    Jump

  • How unscrupulous criminals were able to attain high government offices, even though it was perfectly obvious that there could hardly have been more unsuitable candidates.

    And in a similar vein: how so many people in today's democracies can be so ideologically blinded that they vote against their own interests – even though the internet makes it very easy to obtain basic information so that you don't fall for obvious lies.

    I think with the passage of time, this will seem so absurd that people will wonder how we could have been so incredibly stupid.

    I am curious to see what historians will call this period. Perhaps anti-Enlightenment or the age of misinformation. However, this is of course conditional on us not overdoing it in the coming years to such an extent that the future resembles Idiocracy. That is also a possibility that is not entirely unlikely...

  • MAGA supporter feeling gaslit

    Jump

  • Yes, that's why there must be legal and social consequences for people who systematically and continuously spread lies. If a democracy is to function even remotely, we cannot let them get away with it, forgive them for their actions, or dismiss them as harmless campaign tactics.

    Otherwise, exactly what we are experiencing will happen: political discourse is moving further and further away from its purpose, which is to negotiate compromises based on the exchange of (rational and factual) arguments.

    It goes without saying that marketing, charisma, and rhetoric are part of this, but deliberate misinformation is something else entirely.

    One example: Trump's claim during the presidential debate that foreigners eat pets—this is a blatant lie with no basis whatsoever. It is unacceptable that this was not immediately clarified.

    Trump has been acting this way throughout his entire career, and he can do so because no one is prosecuting him for it, at least not in a way that would prevent him from doing so. He has already been ordered to pay high fines for defamation, but he will probably never pay them – and even if he did, it would not stop him from continuing in exactly the same way.

    Anyone who votes for him anyway is either misinformed because of all the lies or has other motives.

  • MAGA supporter feeling gaslit

    Jump

  • Of course, it is commendable to believe in the good in people, and there are certainly those who are simply so gullible that they believe the mindless far-right propaganda despite all its obvious contradictions.

    In this case however, which seems to me to be typical of the current behavior of many MAGA demagogues, I think that it is just a matter of pure selfishness, of self-preservation: the regime is losing credibility even among its loyal supporters because it is going too far with its criminal activities and its boundless greed. It seems only fitting to me that those opportunists who, like this lady, have loudly supported it for a long time are now trying to portray their support as a naive misstep. That's also how it was before the Nazi regime was overthrown in Germany: suddenly, no one wanted to be a Nazi anymore because then, of course, they would have had to answer for all the crimes they had made possible or even participated in themselves.

    Furthermore, I have no tolerance for intolerant people. I don't think that's a contradiction, because I believe that people's freedom ends where it interferes with the lives of others. There must be good reasons for this – for example, when the actions of individuals pose a danger to the general public. Blind racism or intolerance towards minorities who simply want to live their lives cannot be such a reason. That's why I have no sympathy for people who think it's okay to impose their twisted worldview on others—I can't muster any sympathy for them and want nothing to do with them, especially since it's pointless to try to have a rational discussion with them, as this post shows (she lost friends and family just to support some hardliner party who couldn't care less - and that is because she just would not see reason).

    I realize, of course, that in the US in particular, due to the sheer number of deeply racist and poorly educated citizens, it is necessary to build bridges, but I still think that people like this woman or MTG should not be accommodated. The reason: with their ideology, from which they are unwilling to deviate, they are a danger to the general public, to democracy, and especially to the groups against which their blind hatred is directed.

    It is simply impossible to work with people who are so deluded. I think it would be dangerous to respond to them with anything other than strict rejection, because that would only reinforce their unshakeable conviction that their ideology and inhuman actions are even remotely acceptable.

    You are right, of course, that democracy requires discussion and a willingness to compromise, but that is not possible with this kind of MAGA cultists because they refuse to accept rational arguments. IMO this disqualifies them as discussion partners, since rationality is a fundamental prerequisite for reasonable, productive discourse and thus for any democratic process.

    So I don't think that strictly rejecting deluded extremists will lead to further extremism. Rather, I think that extremism can only be stopped by strictly excluding people like this woman from the discourse – anything else will only lead to the discourse sinking to their level, as has unfortunately long been the case not only in the US.

    In short, I think we have tried long enough to keep extremists in check by treating them with understanding—this has led to the situation in which not only the US finds itself today. I don't think we should keep this up.

    Edit: By "these people," I don't mean conservative voters in general, but only demagogues like this woman, who poison the discourse with their loudly expressed hatred by spreading racist slogans and untruths instead of presenting arguments. I think the woman's post, if it is genuine, says very clearly what kind of person she is.

  • MAGA supporter feeling gaslit

    Jump

  • Why are they complaining? After all, they didn't vote for the orange rapist because he would do anything for the little people, but because he is a racist and just as dull-witted and intolerant as they are themselves—that was so important to these people that they voted for him against their own interests.

    Now they don't want to pay the price, but claim they voted for him because they supposedly believed, against all common sense and against the advice of even their own families, that he would stand up for the people? No one believes that.