[simianwords]

Why does this post not take into account the other side of it? AI has helped me become more grounded and correct in a lot of areas. Intricate questions are now easily answered in ChatGPT.

Not only that - grok use in twitter works surprisingly well. Can some one really quantify the effect it has had in countering fake news?

It is now way harder to spread fake news on X because a simple grok tag can counter it.

[crooked-v]

How do you know that those easy answers are reliably correct, though?

[simianwords]

It provides sources that you can look up if you are using it in the app. But in twitter: the simple fact that a lot of people don't seem to understand is that AI is actually really factually accurate - way more than you can expect from a normal person.

I have seen very very few egregious errors from Grok and most of the factually incorrect posts seem to be caught by it. For the ones that I Grok was incorrect - I verified it myself and I was wrong and Grok was right.

It turns out that Grok is actually really reliable. But the limitations are that it can't fact check extremely niche topics or intricate posts. But 90% of the cases it does catch them.

Edit: it also makes cute errors like this sometimes https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-buzz/grok-ai-mistak...

[simianwords]

I have a nice example of Grok working well: https://x.com/cgt_strom/status/1967577034579947768

Grok provides clear value here: obvious false information is easily countered. You can see how it easily convinces anyone casually looking at this post. Once they see grok's fact checks they usually believe grok - without it they might leave the post thinking the original post was true. This is immense value in my opinion.

[lm28469]

Yeah it also makes cute errors praising Hitler &co. It seems like it's a fairly objective and factual bot as long as you're leaning on the same side as musk

[simianwords]

Can you show more examples where it fails other than the obvious error that was admitted by them and fixed quickly?

Of course this is just anecdotal - you will be able to find some bad examples but I'm still interested to know what you consider as errors.

[lm28469]

It would only be capable of truth on subjects with a large consensus, everything else is biased or hallucinated, it's so obvious that grok is being aligned to musk's world view, you're free to think like musk but it's not some kind of god given truth.

How is a statistical model going to come up with The Truth exactly ? It's all based on existing material, at best you'll get the statistical average of what people wrote about the topic, it's cool if you're asking about the color of tomatoes or the shape of bananas, but now people are using these tools to get The Truth about news or politics

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/false-claims-about-gaza-pho...

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/7/11/as-millions-adop...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/why-does-the-ai-powere...

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/06/26/elon-musks-ai-...

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250602-hey-chatbot-i...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/05/24/grok-mu...

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/17/groks-white-genocide-respons...

[simianwords]

So from your links there are two groups: first being the mecha hitler thing that they admitted was a mistake and fixed. The other being image based prompts which it is admittedly not good at.

Let me ask you directly: do you think this clearly diminishes the power of grok fact check? Imagine the number of times it has got it _right_. Any such system is going to have some errors and the errors will be highlighted by the press and media.

>It would only be capable of truth on subjects with a large consensus, everything else is biased or hallucinated, it's so obvious that grok is being aligned to musk's world view, you're free to think like musk but it's not some kind of god given truth.

We are already discussing elsewhere in this thread that Elon is _not_ able to hack it to think like himself. Grok routinely takes the side of world consensus and not Musk.

>How is a statistical model going to come up with The Truth exactly ? It's all based on existing material, at best you'll get the statistical average of what people wrote about the topic, it's cool if you're asking about the color of tomatoes or the shape of bananas, but now people are using these tools to get The Truth about news or politics

I'm okay with the truth that the world has converged on. This itself is an extremely big leap from what we had before - blatant misinformation is countered by a simple "grok is this true" comment. We have basically eliminated 80%-90% of misinformation posts. And the ones it doesn't get right are ones that we as humanity can't figure out the right answer to and it takes the average consensus which I'm okay with.