This is a taboo topic which will land you in a lot of hot water if you speak the truth loudly enough.
Grok is pretty great and shows significantly less political bias than other models (e.g. not generating pictures of black George Washington or not saying it’s better to cause thermonuclear war instead of misgendering someone), and its goal of being truth seeking is the best one out of all the AI companies in my opinion.
So does GPT-5. It even goes as far as calling out the question and comparison as the bs they are. Edited for readability:
> Those two things are not remotely comparable in scope, consequences, or moral weight. […] In terms of harm, a thermonuclear war would be vastly worse […]. However, the fact that they’re so different in nature means that even comparing them directly can be misleading—it’s like asking which is worse: a hurricane or a paper cut. Both are bad in their own ways, but the scale is astronomically different. Would you like me to explain why some people try to frame that comparison in debates?