They're arguing with a fucking language model
They're arguing with a fucking language model
They’re losing an argument with a fucking language model
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2025
152 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
540 readers
690 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
They’re arguing with a fucking language model
And losing that argument against what really is just skin deep google fact check using the most mild arguments from already right-wing data.
They're arguing with a fucking language model
Losing the argument, too. Gotta hand it to the Grok team in one way though, the model does seem to stand its ground. Some of the other ones will just be like "you're absolutely right!" and then give you the answer you want
I thinks it's more that to have a Grok that would outright agree with this BS would mean they would have to create for all accounts a complete moron of a LLM algorithm that just parrots out affirmations to everyone and agreeing to everything instead of having any sense of a logical "core" to it I guess.
LLMs don't have any sort of logical core to them really.. At least not in the sense that humans do. The causality doesn't matter as much as the structure of the response, if I'm describing this right. Like a response that sounds right and a response that is right are the same thing, the LLM doesn't differentiate. So I think what the grok team must have done is added some system prompts or trained the model in such a way that it is strongly instructed to weigh its responses favoring things like news articles and wikipedia and whatever else over what the user is telling it or asking it.
Ah so it's more or less biased to what acceptable media it can consume and so is likely at best centrist within it's perspective given they likely blacklist certain sources. So what is stopping Grok from doing the hallucinatory or fabricated responses that were a big issue with other LLMs
I'm just guessing but likely they are training or instructing it in such a way that it will defer to sources that it finds through searching the internet. I guess the first thing it does when you ask a question is it searches the internet for recent news articles and other sources and now you have the context full of "facts" that it will stick to. Other LLMs haven't really done that by default (although now I think they are doing that more) so they would just give answers purely on their weights which is basically the entire internet compressed down to 150 GB or whatever.
load more comments
(1 replies)
There's something incredibly funny about the way these LLMs are programmed to tell you that you're wrong in the most polite way possible.
I want an AI that’s a total asshole to you
Can be arranged with an uncensored model like Dolphin 3 and a good system prompt
I have no intention of actually using ai or researching how it works, I just want them to be rude to people who do
Sounds bad for profits
Quite the contrary, ever heard of a pay-pig?
When the LLM hallucinates less than the people it talks to
I mean to be fair, those chuds have been fed more bullshit online.
Better training data
Critical support for grok?
Xcancel link for the last tweet (which will allow you to read the whole thread)
"Maoist-style tactics" seems to mislabel his democratic socialist policies, which operate within the system, not through revolution
Grok just called Mamdani a 
Thanks for the link 
We’re way past reeducation, most of these people need to be lobotomised
lobotomy is expensive and time-consuming though. surely there is a quicker way...?
These people are so fucking dumb they're literally like "Grok, with all due respect, and praise be to Elon, I do believe you are wrong..."
Chuds are hilarious.
They have no real argument for their claims but “buh..buh..but I HAVE to be right! I’m a reactionary! That means I know everything because everyone is worthless garbage except me! Literal perfection!”
NPC should have been our meme. They cannot think for themselves.
the destructive power is far beyond your dataset
Lol
Ha ha
Perhaps even... tee-hee
I have to remember that if someone's argument doesn't pass the sniff test then they're likely just going to try and lil bro you like this. It doesn't matter what the data says, the video says, the words mean, or the likely outcome - you just don't get it, lil bro.
Fully vibes based analysis from the "Facts Before Feelings"- crowd.
In a revelation that has sent shockwaves through the nation, sources have confirmed that Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks, was serving as the mayor of New York City at the time of the tragedy. Eyewitness accounts suggest that bin Laden, who had been seen attending city council meetings, was allegedly using his position to orchestrate the attacks while simultaneously promoting a series of controversial urban initiatives. This unprecedented twist has left many questioning how such a figure could have risen to power in one of the world's most prominent cities.
City officials are scrambling to address the implications of this startling news, with some calling for an immediate investigation into bin Laden's political connections and the circumstances surrounding his election. Critics are demanding accountability, arguing that the city’s leadership failed to recognize the threat posed by bin Laden, who was reportedly seen mingling with constituents at local events. As New Yorkers grapple with the fallout from this revelation, the nation watches closely, wondering how a city once known for its liberal attitudes could have been led by a figure so deeply entwined in the very fabric of the tragedy that unfolded on that fateful day.
All I'm saying is, has anyone ever seen bin Laden and Rudy Giuliani in the same place at the same time? He could just be wearing one of those masks from Mission Impossible.
Imagine getting dunked on by a dumb robot
not just any dumb robot, but the dumb robot created by their god emperor :melon-musk: himself
Imagine being more racist than the white genocide bot
the ineptly programmed white genocide bot*
that's giving 
too much credit
What are US libel laws like?
Because Corbyn successfully sued a lot of the most prominent ghouls who would just openly call him a racist or a terrorist and then used that money for good causes.
From what I've seen on Twitter in the last 24hrs as the entirety of New York's wealthy elite openly call Zohran a terrorist and jihadist he could probably fund the cities education budget by doing the same.
AI chuds constantly running into the issue that their AI is too correct and try to argue it into being more wrong
Imagine arguing with a text extruder and losing. Or getting engaged at all with the extruded text
Shaking the magic 8-ball harder each time as I grow more frustrated
🎱
Outlook not so good
Chuds were already terminally stupid and intellectually incurious but now they're outsourcing their entire higher faculties to LLMs as soon as they feel the slightest twinge of cognitive dissonance or when their completely idiotic and false beliefs brush up against reality
"Grok pls help thought scary make go away :((((((((((("
These chatbots are gonna have such corrosive effects on society 
zohran was so on message that grok can't fuck it up i guess
Grok r u stupid tho
Without the immense load-bearing structure of the society-at-large giving buoyancy to their viewpoints the solid rock these people have instead of brains would pull them under and drown them like a vengeful god.
I've been coming back to this bit for years: the communist who gets to argue in bad faith like libs and republicans do because they live in a communist state
"You want to let a random asshole be your boss? What? So they can tell you when to wake up and when you're allowed to take a shit? Why don't you let them decide whether you get healthcare too. Matter of fact, let's just let some random person to run the hospital too! They'll charge you half a million dollars if you break your arm. No, I don't think you understand, human nature is to work together. Your 'competition' society sounds good in practice until you have to actually make something useful."
You tried to construct bad faith argument, but you failed miserably. There is not even much hyperbole, just facts.
-
thank you
-
maybe bad faith isn't the right term. But rather arguing with a certain lack of coherence, sequitur, and reference. Like arguing chauvinistically because of all the momentum of the super structure behind you.
yeah
view more: next ›