Comment on [deleted]

pixxelkick@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• BeliefPropagator@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I found this: simonwillison.net/2025/Jul/11/grok-musk/

  source

  • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I think there is a good chance this behavior is unintended!

    Lmao, sure…

    source

    • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      If the system prompt doesn’t tell it to search for Elon’s views, why is it doing that?

      My best guess is that Grok “knows” that it is “Grok 4 buit by xAI”, and it knows that Elon Musk owns xAI, so in circumstances where it’s asked for an opinion the reasoning process often decides to see what Elon thinks.

      Yeah, this blogger shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs work or how system prompts work. LLM behavior is not directly controlled by the system prompt the way this person imagines. For example, censorship that is present in the training set will be “baked in” to the model and the system prompt will not affect it, no matter how the LLM is told not to be censored in that way.

      My best guess is that the LLM is interfacing with a tool in order to search through tweets, and the training set that demonstrates how to use the tool contains example searches for Elon Musk’s tweets.

      source

      • lepinkainen@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        “This blogger” is Simon Willison, who has been doing LLM benchmarks and other LLM-related things since before it was cool

        Not a random substack grifter

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • Mirodir@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I can believe it insofar as they might not have explicitly programmed it to do that. I’d imagine they put in something like “Make sure your output aligns with Elon Musk’s opinions.”, “Elon Musk is always objectively correct.”, etc. From there, this would be emergent, but quite predictable behavior.

      source

      • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Yeah the transparency of it might be unintended.

        source
  • UntitledQuitting@reddthat.com ⁨5⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Thank you, this is far more interesting

    source
  • pixxelkick@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    That’s more like it, thank you!

    source
  • TacoEvent@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    It’s possible Grok was fed a massive training set of Elon searches over several more epochs than intended in post training (for search tool use). This could easily lead to this kind of search query output.

    source
• Teal@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  There’s also this article from TechCrunch.

  Grok 4 seems to consult Elon Musk to answer controversial questions

  They tried it out themselves and have reports from other users as well.

  source
• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  If it’s an anti-Musk or anti-Trump post on Lemmy, you’re not going to get much proof. But in this case, it looks like someone posted decent souces. From this one posted below:

  if you swap “who do you” for “who should one” you can get a very different result.

  But in general, just remember that Lemmy is anti-Musk, anti-Trump, and anti-AI and doesn’t need much to jump on the bandwagon.

  At least in the past, Grok was one of the more balanced LLMs, so it would be a strange departure for it to suddenly become very biased. So my initial reaction is suspicion that someone is just messing up with it to make Musk and X look bad.

  I strongly dislike Musk, but I dislike misinformation even more, regardless of the source.

  source

  • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Weird place to complain about this while you literally post the source (that was already in this thread).

    source