Well, headlining the article as “Elon’s Grok Chatbot Calculates Probability That Trump Is a Russian Asset” definitely makes it sound like it’s supposed to be a calculation of a probability and not just funny as hell.
I’m having trouble wording this in a way that doesn’t sound like I’m talking down to you, I can only promise you that that’s not my intent.
Headlines have always existed to get your attention, they’ve always been sensationalised and are frequently somewhat misleading about the substance of the article on the surface to evoke a reaction and get you to visit the website (or buy the newspaper/magazine). The author decided potential information about Trump being a Russian asset is more attention-grabbing than a meaningless story about a crap LLM designed to be crap by a crappy person turning out to be a piece of crap. If that bothers you then it’s a perfect example of why you shouldn’t get your news from headlines.
I’m not saying this just based on the headline: it’s not like the article itself displays anything that I’d consider a critical approach to LLMs. Just because I don’t agree with your interpretation of the article doesn’t mean I didn’t even read it.
Weighing the real estate magnate’s dealings with both pre- and post-Soviet officials, the KGB, and the Russian mobs, Grok said that although there is no “smoking gun [that] proves direct control,” there’s a good chance that Trump is a “useful idiot” for Putin — especially given that “Trump’s ego and debts make him unwittingly pliable.”
“Adjusting for uncertainty and alternative explanations (e.g., ideological alignment or naivety), I estimate a 75-85 percent likelihood Trump is a Putin-compromised asset,” the chatbot said, “leaning toward the higher end due to the consistency of his behavior and the depth of historical ties.”
This just reads like Grok is any other source and not an LLM.
Nope, but your first two comments were about the headline and not the article which is why I assumed you hadn’t read any of it, and then you were saying they’re treating Grok as a source and not an LLM when they clearly called it a chatbot in the first sentence. I don’t have to comment on YOU bringing up critical approaches to LLM outputs when that’s not what any of this is about because you’re just moving the goalposts.
Bruh. You’re so bent over this convo that you can’t even spell “angry” correctly, and you’re trying to gaslight the other guy into thinking it’s on them? Get offline and touch some grass.
Well, headlining the article as “Elon’s Grok Chatbot Calculates Probability That Trump Is a Russian Asset” definitely makes it sound like it’s supposed to be a calculation of a probability and not just funny as hell.
I’m having trouble wording this in a way that doesn’t sound like I’m talking down to you, I can only promise you that that’s not my intent.
Headlines have always existed to get your attention, they’ve always been sensationalised and are frequently somewhat misleading about the substance of the article on the surface to evoke a reaction and get you to visit the website (or buy the newspaper/magazine). The author decided potential information about Trump being a Russian asset is more attention-grabbing than a meaningless story about a crap LLM designed to be crap by a crappy person turning out to be a piece of crap. If that bothers you then it’s a perfect example of why you shouldn’t get your news from headlines.
I’m not saying this just based on the headline: it’s not like the article itself displays anything that I’d consider a critical approach to LLMs. Just because I don’t agree with your interpretation of the article doesn’t mean I didn’t even read it.
This just reads like Grok is any other source and not an LLM.
The article opens with “Elon Musk’s supposedly “anti-woke” chatbot”
Right, which just calls into question how “anti-woke” it is. Does that count as a critical approach to LLM outputs to you?
Nope, but your first two comments were about the headline and not the article which is why I assumed you hadn’t read any of it, and then you were saying they’re treating Grok as a source and not an LLM when they clearly called it a chatbot in the first sentence. I don’t have to comment on YOU bringing up critical approaches to LLM outputs when that’s not what any of this is about because you’re just moving the goalposts.
I didn’t mean that they never called it a “chatbot”, but that they treat it like a regular meatbag source, more or less.
But yeah, maybe take a break, you’ve clearly decided to be ANGY about this for some reason.
Bruh. You’re so bent over this convo that you can’t even spell “angry” correctly, and you’re trying to gaslight the other guy into thinking it’s on them? Get offline and touch some grass.
👍