Perhaps you feel that other people shouldn’t be trusted with that much freedom, but as a user, why would you want to shackle yourself to a censored language model?
Why would you conflate giving a computer an objective command with what is essentially someone else giving you access to query a very large database of "information" that was already curated by human beings?
Look. I don't know Elon Musk, but his rhetoric and his behavior over the last several years has made it very clear to me that he has opinions about things and is willing to use his resources to push those opinions. At the end of the day, I simply don't trust him to NOT intentionally bias *any* tool or platform he has influence over.
Would you still see it as "censoring" a LLM if instead of front-loading some context/prompt info, they just chose to exclude certain information they didn't like from the training data? Because Mr. Musk has said, publicly, that he thinks Grok has been trained on too much "mainstream media" and that's why it sometimes provides answers on Twitter that he doesn't like, and that he was "working on it." If Mr. Musk goes in and messes around with the default prompts and/or training data to get the answers that align with his opinions, is that not censorship? Or is it only censorship when the prompt is changed to not repeat racist and antisemitic rhetoric?
The difference here is many techies are more comfortable with LLMs censoring, or even rewriting history, as they align with their politics and prejudices.
Musk has attempted to provide a more balanced view I don’t consider just censorship. If he’s restricting the LLMs from including mainstream media viewpoints, I would consider that to be censorship, but I haven’t seen evidence of that.
So i understand the intent in implementing those, but they also reduce perceived trust and utility. It's a tradeoff.
Let's say I'm using Gemini. I can tell by the latency or the redraw that I asked an "inappropriate" query.
I’m referring more to the runtime safeguards, but also the post-training biases.
Yes we are talking about degree, but the degree matters .
https://techcrunch.com/2025/06/18/xai-is-facing-a-lawsuit-fo...
The masks are off and it's pretty clear what reality is.
Musk seems mildly amused by the whole thing, not appalled or livid (as any normal leader would be).
I remember when Ring, for years, including after being bought by Meta, had huge issues with employee stalking. Every employee had access to every camera. It happened multiple times, or, at least, to our knowledge.
But that's not a people problem, that's a technology problem. This is what happens when you store and transit video over the internet and centralize it, unencrypted. This is what happens when you have piss-poor permission control.
What I mean is, it says a lot about the product if "disgruntled employees" are able to sabotage it. You're a user, presumably paying - you should care about that. Because, if we all wait around for the day humans magically start acting good all the time, we'll be waiting for the heat death of the universe.
> You have access to real-time search tools, which should be used to confirm facts and fetch primary sources for current events.
The timing in relation to the Grok 4 launch is highly suspect. It seems much more like a publicity stunt. (Any news is good news?)
But, besides that, if that prompt change unleashed the very extreme Hitler-tweeting and arguably worse horrors (it wasn't all "haha, I'm mechahitler"), it's a definite sign of some really bizarre fine tuning on the model itself.
I don’t recall where they published the bit of prompt that kept bringing up “white genocide” in South Africa at inopportune times.
> Actually it's a good thing that the model can be easily Nazified
This is not the flex you think it is.
Connect Claude or Llama3 to X and it'll probably get talked into LARPing Hitler.