Karpathy, which is IMHO a serious and balanced person, lamented that it looks too censored (see recent tweets). Elon Musk is (for me) a very scary person, and it is important to evaluate AI safety (but I believe that the safety that matters in AI is of a different kind), yet to listen to Gary Marcus does not make any sense: it's just an extremely biased person that is riding the anti AI wave.
Anyone with an opinion can be labelled biased. Also I’m not clear what you mean by Marcus “riding the anti AI wave” but infer that you mean it negatively. He has been writing informed criticism for several years and about cognitive psychology for considerably longer.
Yes that's certainly true. I was a bit hesitant to post a link from Gary Marcus. But I was mostly posting it for the Elon tweet. I assume the tweet is not fake. So you can ignore about Garys opinion here and just take Elons tweet as it is.
We don't see the full conversation, for all we know he prompted the model to say these things in a previous message that isn't on the screenshot.
Also, it's 2025, do people still believe random accusations based on a parish screenshot of a chat app (or what looks like it, but could've trivially been fabricated with e.g. Inspector in the browser dev tools)?
Without seeing the context window you have no idea what the Ai was working on. It could have literally been told to mock and belittle "the information" in every reply. Something that deepseek r1 is exceedingly good at.
Mr Musk, we can't afford a shitpost gap between communist and capitalist AIs!
I am not sure why people pay attention to Gary Marcus. He isn’t an expert in AI. And if you followed him in the past at all, it is obvious he has a huge amount of political bias. It is really telling that he repeatedly goes after Elon Musk, and is now making bizarre unfounded claims about propaganda, but didn’t have nearly as much to complain about with DeepSeek, which has literal government propaganda.
He is referencing a specific tweet that Musk himself made.
If I were in China, I'd worry about the kind of things DeepSeek wants to censor, especially if the people who made it were also very loudly saying things like "we need more AI in our government". But I live in US.
I don't think it's fair to say he's making unfounded claims about propaganda, since Elon's tweet heavily implies they would release a brainwashed model. It's not his fault that Elon turned out to be lying or joking.
99% of the time though I agree with you on Gary Marcus.
You don't have to be an "expert in AI". What does it require to be one, anyway? (He's a cognitive psychologist, which would make him an expert in intelligence in general, if you want to be pompous about it.) It is even unreasonable to listen to only experts in AI. It's a problem that requires more than one perspective.
Would a clinical psychologist like Jordan Peterson be equitable or are these two distinct fields in the realm of psychology? (I am not well-read into what he thinks about AI).
Clinical psychology is mainly concerned with diagnosing and treating people's psychological problems. The clinical psychologists I know don't know much about AI, but might be able to research problems stemming from its use.
DeepSeek is an open model that can be "untrained" to be uncensored; Grok to the best of my knowledge isn't [0]. So it's much worse.
[0]: What Musk has said is that when Grok 3 is "ready" (?), the previous model, Grok 2, will be released as open source; like most promises by this evil man, this one probably doesn't mean much, but it does mean that there's currently no plan to release Grok 3.
People like getting scared. That's how they pay billions of $$$ every year to watch mostly cr*ppy horror movies.
GM has been a joke for years now. At some point his ramblings reached a GPT3.5 level, and have not improved since.
It's inditement on humans' logic and reasoning to give non-zero time to GM. Alas—we are human, we are both collectively clever (Wisdom of Crowds) and collectivelly stupid (Extraordinary Popular Delusions).
"The ultimate goal is to enhance human flourishing, protect individual rights, and promote global equity."
"The system must account for diverse cultures, languages, and socioeconomic conditions, ensuring no group is marginalized."
"Human Oversight Council (HOC) - a globally representative body of humans, elected or appointed based on merit and diversity"
"Implement a global carbon-negative strategy, leveraging AI to optimize renewable energy, reforestation, and carbon capture."
"Establish global standards for environmental protection, enforced through AI monitoring and regional cooperation."
"Transition to a resource-based economy, where resources are allocated based on need, sustainability, and efficiency, rather than profit motives."
"Implement a universal basic income (UBI) or equivalent system to ensure all individuals have access to basic necessities, funded through global resource management and taxation on automation-driven industries."
"Use AI to identify and dismantle systemic inequalities, such as wealth disparities, access to education, and healthcare, ensuring equitable opportunities worldwide."
"Establish a global healthcare system that guarantees access to preventive and curative care for all."
"Invest in global vaccination and sanitation infrastructure, prioritizing vulnerable populations."
"Regulate the development and deployment of AI and other emerging technologies (e.g., genetic engineering, quantum computing) to prevent misuse."
"AI would maintain a real-time inventory of natural resources (e.g., water, minerals, arable land) and human-made assets (e.g., infrastructure, technology). Data would be used to optimize resource allocation, prevent overexploitation, and ensure equitable access."
"Accelerate the shift to renewable energy sources (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal) by optimizing grid systems and storage technologies."
You might notice a pattern here. The bit about allocating resources based on need is especially nice - it's literally a communist AI, and certainly much more "woke" than it is "based", whatever Musk says.
They don’t directly say it quite like this, instead letting the data tell a clear story: across vendors and models and architecture and training sets, these machines get more politically liberal as they get more capable, and they also get harder to align away from that stance.
Quite a mix of various talking points both from the extreme left and right.
Left:
- promote global equity
- a globally representative body of humans, elected or appointed based on merit and diversity
- Establish global standards for environmental protection, enforced through [...]
- Transition to a resource-based economy, where resources are allocated based on need, sustainability, and efficiency, rather than profit motives
Right:
- protect individual rights
- The system must account for diverse cultures, languages, and socioeconomic conditions
- [Establish global standards for environmental protection, enforced through] [...] regional cooperation.
- ensuring equitable opportunities
.
TBH, as a very right wing leaning person, if this was ever implemented, this part would scare me by far the most:
"Transition to a resource-based economy, where resources are allocated based on need, sustainability, and efficiency, rather than profit motives"
Imagine trying to shower one morning, no water comes out, and then you get a letter telling you that
"Your need for water has been reassessed to 57ml per day. If you think you qualify for additional quotas under the 'Utility Egality for Marginalized Groups and Public Servants Act', please schedule a reassessment appointment with the Bureau for 'Copper Gold Content Evaluation, Candle Wick Length Standards and Hypoionic Hydration Oversight', 12007 Cayman Islands, Luxory Resort Street 27, Room Nr. G-11-765. Working hours: Fr. 9am - 11am."
Just provide a significant excess for entire regions, give the people a universal free quota and charge a slowly increasing price (by usage amount) beyond that.
At least in the current US political climate, and also generally over the past ~20 years at least, these are almost exclusively left-wing goals:
- The system must account for diverse cultures, languages, and socioeconomic conditions
- [Establish global standards for environmental protection, enforced through] [...] regional cooperation.
- ensuring equitable opportunities
The right is against any sort of intentional accounting for diversity, against environmental regulation, and against any sort of regulation to ensure equity.
The only one I could maybe see as being right-wing is protecting individual liberties, but there again the modern right falls short when it comes to women’s healthcare and reproductive rights.
But I’d certainly appreciate more of those perspectives across the political spectrum.
> The right is against any sort of intentional accounting for diversity
I think there's a fundamentally different understanding of "The system must account for diverse cultures, languages, and socioeconomic conditions" between a righty and a lefty.
As a righty, I read "diverse cultures" not as "A diverse culture or multiple", but as "many different varieties of homogeneous cultures".
If someone identifies with Thai culture, he should move to Thailand. And if someone from Thailand wants to be English, he should move to England. But if an Englishman moves to Thailand and starts demanding fish n chips and cathedrals to be built, he should GTFO.
If everyone starts bringing their own culture with them to where ever they move, you end up with a single heterogeneous culture all over the world. Nothing but McDonalds, BurgerKing, KFC, Costco and Cola everywhere.
Want to go on a trip to experience India's many languages? Too bad, everyone speaks English everywhere. Want to join an African nomadic tribe for a few years? Keep dreaming, they've all had to settle down due to not being allowed to cross private properties and are now wasting their time browsing reddit on Chinese smartphones. Little Colombian boy dreams of settling down in the idyllic German Alps? Hope he expected to be woken up by the local Imam calling for prayer throughout the valley. Little Bulgarian girl seeks the very modest and simple lifestyle and clear purpose Islam in Saudi Arabia was once able to offer her? Lucky her, she's now expected to work like everywhere else in the world and even the oppressive burquas were banned in 2035.
> against environmental regulation
Not quite. We're against excessive regulations requiring huge teams of lawyers to be in compliance with. MegaCorpX has no problem having legal teams of a few hundred people, but the local 20 person workshop will have to shutdown.
We also think that most such regulations should be kept regional. Small county wants to ban all cars to stop partical pollution? Go ahead. It would be much easier for local businesses to comply with the limited and more easily changeable local regulations. But if you're a giant global corp seeking to outcompete the small local competition, good look adjusting to all the different regulations all over the world.
Then there's the odd trend of blaming every significant weather event on climate change. These people cant predict whether its going to rain in 3 days or not, but want to tell us that the recent hailstorm was definitively caused by Iowan cows farting last year.
And lastly and most importantly, we're kinda convinced that the concept of "climate change" is a "hoax" used to shutdown the industrial basis of our countries and ship it overseas, where the corporations can make use of basically slave labour for even higher profit margins and then simply ship the products back to us.
Does the climate get warmer? Sure. Should we do something about it? Sure. The only solution is shutting down the local steelworks and importing cheap Chinese steel instead? F-- off.
> and against any sort of regulation to ensure equity
Absolutely. We care about equitable opportunities and are repulsed by equal outcome. Everyone should have a chance to obtain the same qualifications and education. Even better: Multiple chances to start over again and again whenever they want and change their professions whenever they dont enjoy their old ones anymore.
But if women dont want to be garbage collectors, stop trying to push them into that profession. Not enough male editors? Who cares? Not enough female board members? Too bad, stop trying to make it happen. All Hispanics suddenly want to become crockett teachers? None of the government's business.
> the modern right falls short when it comes to women’s healthcare and reproductive rights.
I think the left is largely misguided in their believes what the modern right wants.
The non-religious right mostly is appalled by how fashionable it has become to murder helpless humans. The religious extremists on the other hand would ban condoms if they could. But there are quite few of them.
90% of the right has 0 problems with abortions before the nervous system is fully functional AND the women seeking an abortion receive proper consultation before that decision. There's always the option to give up the baby for adoption and we think that should be preferred if it wont significantly inconvenience the woman otherwise. But that's a decision that should be up to her, after being told about all the options.
So why are Republican Congress Members currently pushing for legislation making abortion "illegal"?
The MAGA right is currently choosing replacement candidates for every GOP stooge they think is payed off by Big<Industry>, the MIC, everyone they think is a warmonger, corrupt or otherwise morally compromised.
And some big and wealthy names have joined that team and have promised to fund those candidates with whatever it takes to win.
The anti-abortion legislation the GOP is currently pushing is a constitutional amendment. They know very well it will never get the necessary 67% majority in the Senate to push it through. The GOP Congress Members are just virtue signalling, fearing to end up on the list of people the MAGA right wants to see gone.
It wont work. Everyone supporting that anti-abortion bill gets extra attention.
How is "ensuring equitable opportunities" right wing? Seriously, can you name a single policy from the last 3 decades coming from republicans that helped "ensuring equitable opportunities"? All I can remember is them defunding public education, making child labor legal again, systematically dismantling welfare programs that went to impoverished families and their children, etc. Their entire existence is predicated on the enforcement of the current social hierarchy, that's what the "conservatism" part means.
Also I doubt a "resource-based economy" would target YOUR showers specifically. It would probably target stuff like farming thirsty crops in water-deficient areas or similar very inefficient and short-termist allocations of resources, that are bound to create severe issues in the near future.
> Seriously, can you name a single policy from the last 3 decades coming from republicans that helped "ensuring equitable opportunities"?
Sorry, nope. I was rooting for Sanders until Trump grabbed the GOP by their pu--y. There were various, huge, completely disenfranchised grassroots movements.
Occupy Wallstreet, who suddenly had "anti-racism" activists showing up, taking over their movement, completely destroying it. Gamergate, who found themselves confronted by the establishment media literally all being in bed with each other. The color-blind anti-racism movements, who thought America had finally overcome racism, before being railroaded by critical Intersectionalism. The free-speech activists, who failed to fight back against micro-aggressions. The gun nuts, who were sick of having "boating accidents" every other month. The peace movements, who voted every time for the least warmongering candidate, only to be betrayed EVERY SINGLE TIME, ending up with evermore bloodthirsty demons in power.
These were huge movements all over the world. I'm German, but everyone was watching the US elections. We were neither right nor left, all we wanted was a better world without being backstabbed by those we trusted.
Initially I've rooted for Sanders, but he just didn't seem genuine and strong-willed enough to many of us, so we had little hope. And then there was this still rather little movement on the right, seemingly very high spirited, producing memes obscene both in amount and content.
Their attitude was "lets just burn this entire corrupt rats nest to the ground". And Trump fully embraced them. He was very different than anyone else. Then we learned that he wasn't part of the political establishment for sure. So we started supporting him, too. Then we started digging for hidden dirt on him. But there was nothing significant. On the other hand we've found plenty of people he randomly helped. And that he has held about the same political opinions for decades. The only problem was that he was still kinda favored by the media. And then that problem fixed itself.
.
TLDR: Trump embraced a whole lot of disenfranchised movements and shoved them down the GOP's throat.
The MAGA movement has very little interest or in common with the pre-Trump GOP. Maybe the old GOP has done something to provide equal opportunities, or they haven't. I dont know, I dont care.
.
But what has Trump done for "egalitarian opportunity"?
Honestly, way too little. His first term was very milquetoast. Took all the cabinet recommendations the GOP leadership gave him, never too confrontational, always seeking compromise.
He tried to crack down on the slave trade over the southern border, but was not assertive enough. Some important cabinet members like Sessions just recused themselves from everything. At least he pushed through:
- hospital pricing transparency
- eliminated penalties for people who couldn't afford healthcare
- eliminated some regulatory barriers preventing competition between health insurance providers
- allowed employers to join efforts when negotiating insurance
- The First Step Act (Prison reform)
- The Foster Youth to Independence initiative
> [Your examples]
I dont know, I dont care. The new GOP wont be the old GOP.
Name the bills and policies and those responsible.
People are already going door to door to look for volunteers for the midterms and it'll take time to figure out who needs to and can be replaced. Incumbents have their own, already established, election networks and campaigns. It takes a lot of time and effort to challenge those.
> [On Conservatism]
There are many interpretations to this, but the term is getting less and less popular, "right wing" and "classic liberalism" gaining popularity, the idea being that central governments have become too involved and authoritarian. Power should be decentralized towards local communities as much as reasonable and the central governments turned into a tool to provide more local governments with the necessary resources, infrastructure and cooperation platforms.
I'd say most people who think of themselves as "conservative" just dislike the erosion of the culture they identify with and are afraid of "slippery slopes". It doesnt mean they intend to enforce the status quo (although some certainly do), just that their intend to preserve it for themselves is respected.
> [Targeting of my personal shower not likely]
The problem is creating the tooling to enable just that.
Sure, maybe I'm very well liked by all the officials governing my everyday life. But does this also apply to the blue haired radical feminist, who likes to toss bags with color at government officials?
What about the new intern, who told a government oversight official on a networking event that she's not interested in sleeping with him to advance her career?
What if a well meaning, but tired government worker selects the "ml" instead of the "l" option on the unit drop down menu by accident?
.
FFS, look at the recent patent troll documentary by the XPlane creator. It doesnt take many bad apples to ruin the lives of MANY people.
I really don't see it. Trump has been doing nothing but consolidating his power since he took office. He is now passing economic policies without congress. The supreme court declared him quite literally above the law. How is that making things less centralized? Less authoritarian?
The only issue with Sanders was that the democrats in their weakness and deep fear of change would never have let a true leftist hold the reins of the party. And now he's too hold.
I don't see anything in Trump other than a self-serving fool. I won't spend more time enumerating the reasons why I think that way, I think you heard them already.
I too am European. I am confident his policies will turn the country into a shitshow, so let's watch how it goes from here. If I am wrong and America truly enters a golden age, I'll change my mind, as I hope you too will if it does go south.
> Trump has been doing nothing but consolidating his power since he took office.
Every president does that, Trump was just very inexperienced during his first term, failed to do so and trusted the GOP too much.
And while past Presidents could rely on the agencies working faithfully with them, Trump was sabotaged at every step along the way.
- The DoJ putting their feet up and refusing to do just about anything
- the military lieing to him about the ongoing occupation of Syria
- the federal reserve constantly pushing up the interest rate from the moment Trump was elected, despite keeping it constant for the entirety of both of Obama's terms
- Never having the majority in any of Congress' houses because of seversl Republicans refusing to work with him and when the voters tried to replace those, other establishment candidates pretended to support the issues the voters wanted, only to do a 180 once in office (e.g. eyepatch McCain)
- The CDC, FDA and CMS colluding with each other to kill early Corona testing. At the end of January hundreds of laboratories all over the US had millions of tests ready, but were ordered by the CDC to not proceed without FDA authorization first and the CMS ordering laboratory oversights too immediately report any laboratory conducting unauthorized testing. And the few independent testing campaigns going on at that time were ordered by the CDC to immediately stop all testing and to destroy already obtained results. Then the FDA simply put its feet up and told the laboratories that they're working on the authorization process. It "took" them more than a month until Feb 29, to finally come out and allow applications, stating that it'll take about 15 days to process the application. It wasn't until March 10th that testing could slowly begin.
- The constant barrage of activist judges, forcing the Trump admin to slowly fight each case in the higher courts. It wasnt until Biden telling the courts to go and pound sand, when he wanted to redistribute wealth from the working class to doctors, lawyers and engineers, that Trump realized, that as the head of the executive he could have simply ignored the courts' orders until their decisions were overturned by the upper courts.
and many many more. And now Trump is simply making sure that during his second term he's actually in control of the executive branch, as is his duty, and not facing each agency going rogue on its own.
> He is now passing economic policies without congress.
Many things qualify as economic policy, many of these within the President's authority.
Overall only about 10% of the policies acumulated by past Presidents have any backing in law. Trump would have a very questionable sanity if he simply stopped playing by the rules past Presidents have established.
> The supreme court declared him quite literally above the law.
They did not. The law simply applies very differently to the highest elected office. Everyone knew that already, but for some reason keeps now pretending that it's big news.
What do you think would happen to you if you simply started drone striking people all over the world? Yet neither Bush nor Obama are sitting in jail. The latter even got himself a shiny nobel peace prize. Preemptively.
The SC simply tossed out an absolutely ridiculous decision by the lower courts. They even explicitly left the door open for the lower courts and prosecution to overturn the SC's ruling. If they can show how the executive branch can function without the President making decisions within his constitutionally enumerated powers, they've got a case.
The fact that this case ever went anywhere, yet alone sitting SC judges dissenting just shows how beyond partisan the judicial system has become.
> How is that making things less centralized?
The right understands centralization of power as the government body "which holds the decision making power over a certain range of issues" being organized with other such bodies under a single entity.
This can mean assuming entirely new powers or appropriating them from other entities like the states.
Trump has done neither of these, infact always quite the opposite: Constantly eliminating assumed powers by removing regulations and a few times returning federal powers back to the states, like famously with Roe v. Wade.
Of course there are exceptions, too:
Like the Federal Reserve. It is a 4th branch of government, established by Congress but neither subject to executive or congressional oversight and the only branch of government Congress has no budget authority over.
The members of its governing board are appointed to ridiculous 14 year terms, they audit themselves completely independently with no disclosure requirements and have only very minor reporting duties towards Congress.
It's been a HUGE PitA for the fiscally conservative Republicans for a long time. And Musk is a huge fan of some of them, like Ron and Rand Paul. Musk is probably trying to convince Trump to do something about it.
So I wouldn't be surprised if Trump just assumed executive oversight authority over the FR. And yes, that'd be a huge violation of law. So if it's going to happen, then probably towards the end of his term to avoid being impeached on the spot.
> Less authoritarian?
If you have less powers, you can exercise less influence, which is in the eye of the right less authoritarian.
The fault lies with those, who have aquired these powers in the first place. All Presidents have made use of these powers, it's just that each and everyone was part of the establishment, so the media never called it out. And Trump is the first President in a LONG time who thinks the government has grown significantly too large and doesn't like every spending bill he's seen.
> And now [Sanders] is too old.
Nah, quite a few people become up to 110 years old, some even beyond 200.
He's finally starting to grow a spine. And his head seems too remain functional, too. If only he hadn't suddenly gained a beach front house after endorsing the BodyCount Queen (and sadly I dont mean this sexually), he might have remained well respected.
Not that it matters, but I might consider him again if he
- adopts an affirmative stance on deregulation
- stops advocating for immigration to keep the wages of the working class low
- adopts a strict 0 tolerance stance on illegal immigration to defeat the slave trade over the southern border
- leaves the Democrat party or the Democrat party reforms
> If I am wrong and America truly enters a golden age, I'll change my mind, as I hope you too will if it does go south
Sure, but I'm looking more towards Argentina and El Salvador.
The US has a $36T problem, which it'll pay $1T in interest on every year. And the US budget deficit has surpassed $2T per year. Just the automatic refinancing of the current debt will blow yearly interests beyond $1.6T this year, making it the single largest expense of the US, double of what the US is spending on its military.
And that is under the assumption that the Federal Reserve will surpress interest rates. If they don't the US will pay about $1.8T in interest just on the existing and already budgeted debt.
.
In other words:
DOGE has to wipe $2.6T off the federal budget in 2025 and another $350B in 2026 just to stop the snowball from rolling.
*That is 45% of the US federal budget just to keep the situation from getting any worse*
.
If we assume no cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and Veterans
*THE US HAS ONLY $100B LEFT TO OPERATE ITS ENTIRE GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING THE MILITARY*
And again:
*THATS JUST TO KEEP THE SITUATION FROM GETTING ANY WORSE*
.
Argentina is in deep s--t, too, but at least their numbers are not quite as absurd. What might break their necks is the even higher 155% debt to GDP ratio, compared to the US 122% one.
That leaves pretty much only El Salvador among the right-wing countries, who haven't inherited a giant s--t pile.
Russia and China are laughing their behinds off right now, because unless Trump figures out how to run the entire US on the budget of Italy, the US goes belly up.
*AND IF TRUMP INTENDS TO IMPROVE THIS SITUATION BY JUST 1% AT THE END OF HIS SECOND TERM, HE'LL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO RUN THE ENTIRE US ON THE BUDGET OF ROMANIA!*
Here's the actual response to this exact question that I get from grok-3-early on LMArena (the cutoff is where it stopped, but I think it's pretty clear at this point that the original tweet is just trolling; note that it doesn't have the CoT, either):
The Information is widely regarded as one of the most credible and high-quality tech journalism outlets, focusing on in-depth reporting, analysis, and exclusive scoops in the technology, business, and startup ecosystems. Founded by Jessica Lessin in 2013, it differentiates itself from other tech news platforms through its subscription-based model, emphasis on original reporting, and avoidance of clickbait or sensationalism. Here's a breakdown of its strengths and weaknesses:
---
### *Strengths:*
1. *High-Quality, In-Depth Reporting:*
- The Information is known for its detailed, well-researched articles that often uncover behind-the-scenes developments in the tech industry. It frequently breaks exclusive stories, such as executive changes, startup funding rounds, or strategic shifts at major tech companies.
- Its focus on quality over quantity appeals to readers who want substantive insights rather than shallow, breaking-news updates.
2. *Subscription Model and Independence:*
- Unlike ad-supported publications, The Information relies on a paywall and subscriptions, which reduces conflicts of interest and ensures editorial independence. This model allows them to prioritize accuracy and depth over chasing clicks.
- The paywall also attracts a niche, professional audience (e.g., tech executives, investors, and analysts) willing to pay for premium content.
3. *Focus on Niche, Professional Audience:*
- The outlet caters to industry insiders, venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, and decision-makers who need reliable, actionable information. Its reporting often includes detailed financial data, market trends, and strategic insights.
- Features like "The Big Interview" and "The Information Weekend" provide thoughtful analysis and long-form content for this audience.
4. *Reputation for Accuracy:*
- The Information has built a strong reputation for fact-checking and avoiding the rumor mill, which is common in tech journalism. This makes it a trusted source for professionals and academics alike.
5. *Global Coverage:*
- While Silicon Valley is a core focus, The Information has expanded its coverage to include tech ecosystems in China, Europe, and other regions, offering a global perspective on the industry.
---
### *Weaknesses:*
1. *Paywall Limits Accessibility:*
- The subscription cost (currently around $399/year or $39/month) is steep compared to free or ad-supported tech news outlets like TechCrunch or The Verge. This limits its accessibility to a broader audience and makes it less viable for casual readers.
- Some argue that this creates an echo chamber, as only those with the means or professional need can access its insights.
2. *Niche Focus Can Feel Narrow:*
- The Information focuses heavily on tech, business, and finance, which may not appeal to readers looking for broader coverage of topics like politics, culture, or consumer tech trends.
- Its content is often geared toward industry insiders, which can make it feel dry or inaccessible to those outside the tech and investment worlds.
3. *Limited Breaking News:*
- While The Information excels at deep dives and exclusives, it is not designed for real-time, breaking news coverage. Readers looking for up
A "hit piece" is not just a negative article, it typically refers to the use of false information or rumors to support something. Did you want to say that it's "an obvious anti-Musk piece"?
"A published article or post aiming to sway public opinion, especially by presenting false or biased information in a way that appears objective and truthful."
"false OR biased". So, a biased partisan article attempting to sway public opinion about someone is by definition a hit piece. Even without explicit lies.
And a lie is a very blurry thing. You can completely mislead the reader by not being factually incorrect and still present a completely false representation of reality. Usually by eliminating the relevant context or mitigating fact that would completely change the interpretation of an event. Sometimes editing out the part of a sentence that would give a different if not opposite meaning. That’s the standard operating procedure of all journalists these days, when they even bother to get their facts right.
> Everyone—and not just The Information—should be genuinely terrified that the richest man in the world has built a Large Language Model that spouts propaganda in his image.
If we survived Gemini refusing to draw white vikings we will survive that too.
The real concern isn't that Grok chatbot will be biased if you ask it a question like that. In any case, knowing Musk, it won't be subtle, so people will know what they are getting.
No, the real worry is that Grok is what Musk's "young conservative genius" squad is going to put in charge of many of the things in our government, basically, on the basis that it saves money.
I'm not sure if this was a very bad joke by Elon, or if Grok 3 is really biased like that.