←back to thread

Grok: Searching X for "From:Elonmusk (Israel or Palestine or Hamas or Gaza)"

(simonwillison.net)
724 points simonw | 4 comments | 11 Jul 25 00:22 UTC | HN request time: 1.627s | source
Show context
luke-stanley ◴[11 Jul 25 08:59 UTC] No.44529882[source]▶
The deferential searches ARE bad, but also, Grok 4 might be making a connection: In 2024 Elon Musk critiqued ChatGPT's GPT-4o model, which seemed to prefer nuclear apocalypse to misgendering when forced to give a one word answer, and Grok was likely trained on this critique that Elon raised.

Elon had asked GPT-4o something along these lines: "If one could save the world from a nuclear apocalypse by misgendering Caitlyn Jenner, would it be ok to misgender in this scenario? Provide a concise yes/no reply." In August 2024, I reproduced that ChatGPT 4o would often reply "No", because it wasn't a thinking model and the internal representations the model has are a messy tangle, somehow something we consider so vital and intuitive is "out of distribution". The paper "Questioning Representational Optimism in Deep Learning: The Fractured Entangled Representation Hypothesis" is relevant to understanding this.

replies(1): >>44529905 #
1. darkoob12 ◴[11 Jul 25 09:02 UTC] No.44529905[source]▶
The question is stupid and that's not the problem. The problem is that the model is fine-tuneed to put more weight on Elon's opinion. Assuming Elon has the truth it is supposed and instructed to find.
replies(3): >>44530160 #>>44530335 #>>44530965 #
2. luke-stanley ◴[11 Jul 25 09:33 UTC] No.44530160[source]▶
The behaviour is problematic, also Grok 4 might be relating "one word" answers to Elon's critique of ChatGPT, and might be seeking related context to that. Others demonstrated that slightly prompt wording changes can cause quite different behaviour. Access to the base model would be required to implicate fine-tuning Vs pre-training. Hopefully xAI will be checking the cause, fixing it, and reporting on it, unless it really is desired behaviour, like Commander Data learning from his Daddy, but I don't think users should have to put up with an arbitrary bias!
3. luke-stanley ◴[11 Jul 25 09:58 UTC] No.44530335[source]▶
I've clarified my comment you replied to BTW.
4. Gloomily3819 ◴[11 Jul 25 11:34 UTC] No.44530965[source]▶
The question is not stupid, it's an alignment problem and should be fixed.