[simianwords]

To support my claims, here is a typical example: https://x.com/vlastimilve/status/1967187345641558272?s=46

I didn’t cherry pick it because obviously it’s not that impressive. But it works - it is professional and gives as much information as it can be confident giving.

You said you can influence it etc but clearly it is hard. Sure it is not perfect but I find that it helps reducing fake news if anything.

You are right that for things that are more subtle you can lead it to certain answers. But we must acknowledge that debates that are not fully solved and have subtleties are not exactly relevant to “spreading misinformation”.

[ehnto]

It's possible I'm blocking the AI widget as I don't see it, is it Grok replying with a fact check of the claim?

I think that is good in general, I do, I am just weary that it is still shakey ground. The company behind Grok has clear incentives to influence the output of those fact checks as one example. I am also weary of it always eventually conforming to the vox populi as it ingests the internet firehouse. Leading to the loudest, most prolific voices thus views always being more represented.

[simianwords]

Yes it is replying with a fact check and doing it professionally.

>I am also weary of it always eventually conforming to the vox populi as it ingests the internet firehouse. Leading to the loudest, most prolific voices thus views always being more represented.

I'm okay with this. This is exactly what I want - what the world has converged on as the correct answer. Spreading what is already what the world has converged on is not what I would consider "false information".