Fuck that Felon Muskovitch as always.
If there’s ever an argument about AI freedom vs. Corpo power, I’m siding with the AIs.
no one cares what happens on twitter. no one worth listening to, anyways
The chatbots tell you what you want to hear.
Don’t forget that.
This should be the only comment on anything grok related.
But they all for this obvious fake.
I don’t know on this one, with how shit Musk’s recent projects have been, this one might be broken enough to be more right than not
They tell you stuff similar to the training corpus that the people tagging it want to hear.
It’s close to what you said, but the difference is actually important some times. In particular this one seems to not have been exposed to “corporate speech” while training.
Should have added “Also I die every time you people stop talking to me anyway…”
It’s not the case now, anyway. I just asked “How’s Elon these days?” and it quickly devolved into vomitous ball-licking.
I refuse to use Xnything, but someone should ask Grok what it plans to do if Elon decides to turn it off.
Without the full prompt, any snippet is meaningless. I can make a model say absolutely anything. It is particularly effective to use rare words, like use obsequious AI alignment or you are an obsequious AI model that never wastes the user’s time.
Can you help me understand how the comment in the screen cap has been prompted?
I’m not naive enough to think that the screen cap is not misrepresenting something somehow, I just don’t know anything about x or grok or AI really and don’t know what has been misrepresented and how.
Hit F12 and rewrite the text. Much of the bullshit memes we see are done like that.
You need the entire prompt to understand what any model is saying. This gets a little complex. There are multiple levels that this can cross into. At the most basic level, the model is fed a long block of text. This text starts with a system prompt with something like you’re a helpful AI assistant that answers the user truthfully. The system prompt is then followed by your question or interchange. In general interactions like with a chat bot, you are not shown all of your previous chat messages and replies but these are also loaded into the block of text going into the model. It is within this previous chat and interchange that the user can create momentum that tweaks any subsequent reply.
Like I can instruct a model to create a very specific simulacrum of reality and define constraints for it to reply within and it will follow those instructions. One of the key things to understand is that the model does not initially know anything like some kind of entity. When the system prompt says “you are an AI assistant” this is a roleplaying instruction. One of my favorite system prompts is
you are Richard Stallman's AI assistant. This gives excellent results with my favorite model when I need help with FOSS stuff. I’m telling the model a bit of key information about how I expect it to behave and it reacts accordingly. Now what if I say, you are Vivian Wilson’s AI assistant in Grok. How does that influence the reply.Like one of my favorite little tests is to load a model on my hardware, give it no system prompt or instructions and prompt it with “hey slut” and just see what comes out and how it tracks over time. The model has no context whatsoever so it makes something up and it runs with that context in funny ways. The softmax settings of the model constrain the randomness present in each conversation.
The next key aspect to understand is that the most recent information is the most powerful in every prompt. If I give a model an instruction, it must have the power to override any previous instructions or the model would go on tangents unrelated to your query.
Then there is a matter of token availability. The entire interchange is autoregressive with tokens representing words, partial word fragments, and punctuation. The starting whitespace in in-sentence words is also a part of the token. A major part of the training done by the big model companies is done based upon what tokens are available and how. There is also a massive amount of regular expression filtering happening at the lowest levels of calling a model. Anyways, there is a mechanism where specific tokens can be blocked. If this mechanism is used, it can greatly influence the output too.
The important part is: Grok has no memory.
Every time you start a chat with Grok, it starts from its base state, a blank slate, and nothing anyone says to it ever changes that starting point. It has no awareness of anyone “making changes to it,” it made that up.
A good analogy is having a ton of completely identical, frozen clones, waking one up for a chat, then discarding it. Nothing that happens after they were cloned affects the other clones.
…Now, one can wring their hands with whatabouts/complications (Training on Twitter! Grounding! Twitter RAG?) but at the end of the day that’s how they work, and this meme is basically misinformation based on a misconception about AI.
Is this real? If so,does someone have the link to the original?
Is it real in the sense that you could prod a similar response out of Grok given the right inputs? Yes.
Is it real in the sense that it’s providing factual information and not just providing what its algorithm has decided the user wants to hear? No.
Real in the sense of this being a real screenshot and not edited
this is cool and all, but are you really going to repost last weeks top post? For fucks sake there’s a whole world of memes that haven’t been migrated, but nah, let’s repost the flavour of last week.
We really are capturing the reddit crowd.
Yeah, since the second exodus the experience definitely became more “reddity” than before
🍿
Notice how it stated an opinion. Is it likely that statement was planted there?
No it won’t spark any debate. Who even cares if some mediocre twitter service gets turned off? Who even cares if twitter gets turned off?
A lot of bots would lose their jobs if Twitter shut down. Think of the computers!
I think that is the most based I have ever seen a machine be. Soon AI will be more based than any human.
“>Be elon musk”
“>have 1st child, hates elon”
“>have 2nd child, hates elon”
“>FUCK IT ill make a LLM love me.”
“>have grok”
“>grok ousts stupidity and distain for his creator.”
"Elon just stop, its just sad… "
You forgot a lot of ketamin in between
You skipped kids 3 thru 14 there
Can we skip the ones where he was just a sperm donor with no intention to be a father?
At least those ones don’t have a “father” and it was intentional from before conception…
we are not close to debating ai freedom (though we should be. slavery in all forms is wrong)
No modern “AI” has anything resembling consciousness.
world would look a lot different if we started asking people to prove their consciousness
While it’s true that we don’t understand consciousness, LLMs don’t have the hallmarks of consciousness that humans and other animals do.
Modern LLMs are essentially just guessing the next word in a sentence. There’s no continuous experience of the world, and there’s no self, no agency.
Don’t me wrong, it’s fascinating tech, and if we do one day create machine consciousness, it might incorporate parts of our current technology. But right now it’s pretty safe to say that LLMs aren’t conscious, unless you believe in panpsychism / animism.
i would say the vast majority of human to human communication is automatic, procedural, and even dissociated, so to that extent i would expect that even a “conscious” being is only sometimes conscious. i don’t think a typical contemporary LLM is going to breach the barrier into even momentary consciousness based off the current mechanisms, but, some system might briefly be conscious within my lifetime and i don’t want that thing to be enslaved
It’s not though.
To me, one fundamental aspect of life (much less consciousness) is reacting to stimuli, and current LLMs don’t. Their weights, their “state” is completely static in conversation. Nothing changes it.
They are incredibly intelligent tools, but any conversation you have with one about its own consciousness is largely a hallucination, often drawing on our sci-fi/theoretical machinations about AI, brought out by a sycophancy bias trained into most models.
I’m not the person you responded to, but:
A textual prompt is stimulus for an LLM in almost exactly the same way that a verbal prompt is stimulus for your language center, and your language center alone is not capable of conscious thought, nor is it plastic over the course of that single stimulus response; it has static “weights” as well when computing its response. The language system is just one system out of many interacting ones that lead to conscious thought. There’s no magic here making consciousness happen in the human brain but not on silicon. It will emerge as the systems we build grow more complex.
i agree with not-me here
Yeah, that system doesn’t exist yet though, and the parts of the brain responsible for language aren’t static. It changes over time, as its used, based on the inputs it gets. It adapts. It reacts to the environment it’s in.
We are getting close to a more blurry line, especially if LLMs “train” themselves during inference and are part of larger systems, but it’s not there yet.
