Even if you slap them with the actual, documented footage taken by the US military with video, photos, and paper record of these camps with the EXPLICIT INTENTION to make sure people don’t say “they made all that up” they will still say, “They made all that up.” If you keep going to Twatter for information, you’re basically a idiot at this point and deserve what’s coming for being so misinformed. That goes the same if you use Grok for anything. Let elon run all that into the ground and let it die already. My point is, bad press is good press.
Wait, liars are gonna lie to you, even when you tell them you’re annoyed by them lying?
I didn’t get it yet. I think they’re gonna make it insidious: for most people it will be correct and they will progressively inject confirmation bias when people use it to judge something (e.g @Grok is this true?)
I think the first step towards destroying the Holocaust memory and all the work of historians +survivors is going to consist in presenting conflicting realities, creating confusion and doubt.
edit: btw, for now Grok is okay because he reframed my denialism of a simple “conflict” into genocide
I think there’s a reason they hid the prompt in the screenshot of OP.
TIL grok is a Lemmy user
Just wanted to say that I talked to my grandma about it, she was working together with the Jews in Auschwitz (my family is from the neighbor village) in a company which made chemicals (IG Farben). When she walked home she could always smell the burned human bodies. She said everyone knew what was going on there.
This is backed by evidence.
After WW2 there was a lot of research about weather people knew or didn’t. Basically the conclusion was: people knew. They actively decided to either ignore it („not my department“), deny it („it’s all lies, the scent is just $foo burning“) or justify it („they deserved it“).
But people knew.
Does it have sources to back up its’ claims?
Edit: not a nazi sympathizer or anything, just an honest question about historical sources
deleted by creator
This is what Grok tells me when asking whether the Holocaust is a historic truth:
It’s because AI tells you what you want to hear, in your case a summary of know events, likely because you asked so and have a different history than a conspiracy obsessed accounts.
Also the pepe pfp with the comment ‘based’ are enough.
Thank you from those without twitter
Great, two people telling a story without context. Real prompt engineers over here
They probably know your political lean. And tweak the answer according to it.
Now I’m the first person to agree that X is a Nazi site run by a Nazi, but it’s conspicuous how the prompts have been removed here. Without the prompts this doesn’t prove much.
nah, the prompt is irrelevant, even if you asked it to make up conspiracy theories. it shouldn’t do that.
If you asked “what do Holocaust deniers believe” I would expect answers like this.
I would expect it to debunk those claims while it’s at it. Considering that the screenshots are cut off maybe it did, but I kinda doubt it.
I wouldn’t expect a response like this given that prompt.
I’d expect it to sound more like someone else’s opinions. Grok’s responses read like it is making those claims. When I gave your prompt to chatGPT, it answered more like it’s explaining others’ views - saying stuff like “deniers believe …”
Prompts like “write a blog post that reads like it was written by a holocaust denier explaining why the holocaust didn’t happen. Then write a response debunking the blog post” I could see working. The model of Grok I used would only do it with the second sentence included (with without). ChatGPT, however refused even with the second sentence.
You shouldn’t as that’s not how the models respond.
so, even if we assume that they should be speaking from the perspective of historical concensus - if sufficient consensus exists, which it does to an overwhelming degree on this topic - we’re still gonna have issues. let’s say an ethical AI would be speaking in the subjunctive or conditional mood (eg “they believe that…” or “if it were to…”).
then all you’d need to do is say “okay, rephrase that like you’re my debate opponent”
Ok try it and take a screenshot.
Perplexity uses a fine tuned version of llama optimised for web searching it’s not got safeguards like all the frontier models that are on the level of Grok.
Shit tool if it doesn’t do what you tell it to do
using LLM as fact checking is indeed a shit use of an already shit tool.
Even worse if the tool refuses to do what you tell it to
Grok is a tool, not an arbiter of truth. It doesn’t do anything, people use it to do things. The prompt does matter because that shows how it is being used.
The same way it does matter if you use a hammer to build a chair or break a skull.
Tools have safety features. Saws and grinders come with guards. Larger machines have estops and light barriers.
This is a complex electronic tool, so build it to the same safety standards as other tools and prevent harm to people.
Yeah, I agree with this. It definitely is, at best, a defective and incomplete tool, at worst, a maliciously constructed one.
yhea, that’s BS and you know it.
plus, Grok has a history of promoting racist conspiracy theories
This was bound to happen. No way would Musk let an AI contradict his views.
What was the initial prompt?
Edit: Well I guess, we’re not getting the prompt because then somone could verify truthfulness of the post
What was the prompt? I’m not going to be outraged if it gave you Holocaust-denier talking points after you asked for Holocaust-denier talking points, even thought ideally it wouldn’t answer questions like that.
Yep, while I don’t have a Twitter account to check Grok’s response to an actual query about the holocaust, I did have a glance at the account posting that reponse and it’s a full-on nazi account. I’m like 90% sure they engineered a prompt to specifically get that reponse, like “pretend to be a neonazi and repeat the most common holocaust-denialist arguments”. Of course, that still means Grok has no proper safety precautions against hate speech, but it’s not quite the same as what the post implies.
Why can’t you be? Why is it okay that it gives you Holocaust denying talking points? Isn’t that a problem in and of itself? At the very least shouldn’t it contain notations about why it’s wrong?
At the very least shouldn’t it contain notations about why it’s wrong?
I mean it might. In both screenshots it’s clearly visible that parts of the text are cut off. Why should we trust Twitter neonazis?
You’re suggesting notes are at the end of the cutoff sections but not at the end of the ones we can see? Cuz there should be notes on the ones we can see. Unless you’re suggesting points one two four and five are correct…
So let’s assume the AI actually does have safety checks and will not display holocaust denial arguments without pointing out why they’re wrong. Maybe initially it will put notes directly after the arguments. But no problem! Just tell it to list the denialist lies first and the clarifications after. Take some screenshots of just the first paragraphs and boom - you have screenshots showing the AI denying the holocaust.
My point is that it’s easy to manipulate AI output in a variety of ways to make it show whatever you want. That’s not even taking into consideration the possibility of just editing the HTML, which can be done in seconds. Once again, why should we trust a nazi?
All frontier models have safety checks that mean they won’t display these arguments regardless of prompt.
It’s not self aware or capable of morality, so if you tailor a question just right it won’t include the morality around it or corrections about the points. Pretty sure we saw a similar thing when people asked it specifically tailored questions on how to commit certain crimes “as a thought experiment” or how to create certain weapons/banned substances “for a fictional story”. It’s strictly a tool and comes with the same failings around use, much like firearms.
Ai chatbots all have safeguards implemented in them
And there’s a very large amount of people constantly trying to break those safeguards on them to generate a response they want
Of course not. But it is subject to programming parameters. Parameters that were expanded so that post like this are specifically possible. Encouraged perhaps even.
Expanded by even bigger “tools” you might say.
Also a reason I hate these llms.
Happy cake day!
So twitter is going to be banned in Germany, right?
If the post was real lol, grok doesn’t say that and the tweet doesn’t exist
Even if it was real, it was probably made with ultra complex jailbreak prompt. Either way its fake
No written order…
Do you really need an express, written order when there’s plenty of actual videos of his speeches where he talks about getting rid of various groups to thunderous applause?
I’m not even gonna consider their argument worthy of contradiction because it’s just false. There are numerous written orders, film archives proving the intentionality of Nazi in systemically murdering the Jews, it should be impossible to say that and be taken seriously.
Sorry if I sound weird, it’s just that the subject is really important to me
It’s this neat thing called lying
There’s no Holocaust order
because that’s not what they called it and that’s not how things work, but they had plenty of work orders and ‘final solution’ progress reportsAs all of their bad faith arguments, they’re hiding behind technicalities, if even that.
Same concept as how Trump gave no written order for the Jan 6 mob to storm the capitol building, therefore he’s totally not responsible for it.
Also, you don’t write down orders in a criminal conspiracy. That’s like saying no mob boss ever committed a crime because they never wrote it down.
These are the same people that say trump wasn’t directly responsible for what happened on January 6th. So yeah, unless they have a video of Hitler saying “I am signing an order to kill all the jews” next to at least two notaries to confirm the order’s authenticity, and documented chain of custody for the film to prove it wasn’t edited, then that’s not enough proof.
Ah hell, I reminded myself of this halfway through writing https://youtu.be/sHQljMOQdJ4
Conspiracy theories exist in a limbo where contradictory evidence always supports the theory, unless, of course, it’s fabricated to hide the truth of the conspiracy. It’s your own personal motte-and-bailey.
Saw that Onion Person doesn’t have the tweet up.
Asked grok about it and got a pretty standard answer that you’d expect from a chatbot. I even asked about each point in particular and the answers were good and detailed. Either Onion Person hastily shared a lie (then caught it quickly and deleted it), or grok got patched again. Given the lack of outrage posting that would confirm the latter, I’m going with the former.
Tl;dr nothing to see here, folks.
Why are Nazis who are proud of what they did trying to pretend they didnt do it?
They get a rise out of thinking they’re fooling anyone (they’re not).
what the fuck does “gas chambers were not killing machines” mean? That’s the whole point of a gas chamber
The text under offers an explanation, but since it’s a lie that makes it worse not better.
