It really isn’t hidden lol. But you will get countless LLM defenders online who claim you can eliminate the bias with prompting or other hacks which don’t address the underlying issue or do anything but patch a broken system. To fix LLM bias you need to systematically correct, and very few folks have bothered to try and design methods to systematically correct. In the case of Grok, it’s actually explicitly designed to reference Musk’s bigoted musings on subjects first before examining other information.

While you are correct, and the author deserves to be called out on their behavior, the context of the entire article is around how they are struggling with being bombarded with things taking up their attention and time. This response is seriously lacking in any compassion for the author’s struggle and more or less ignores the entire point of the article in order. Beehaw isn’t the place for one-liner gotchas. Please try to engage with the content if you’re going to comment.

Eh frankly I just see us moving to more strict reputation based systems - someone has to vouch for you.

So how is an AI prompt poking for Holocaust denial different than a Google search looking for Holocaust denial?

Because one is something you have to actively search for. The other is shoved in your face, by a figure that many feel is one who has some authority.

Why are you defending anything about this situation? This is not a thread to discuss how LLMs work in detail, this is a thread about accountability, consequences, hate, and society.

Definitely something I’ve observed even here. Luckily we get few applications and there is a report button, but I share the author’s frustration and the author’s jaded view of a limited timeline on services such as ours being tenable. Eventually it will be trivially easy to flood this place with slop.

314m what a joke! Still, good to see them lose this court case

You believe that a police officer, who is doing public actions, in a public role, should be given privacy while performing public actions? Say more

Even if an officer’s name and badge number were not public (which would be weird, because both of these are a part of a police officer’s uniform), what is the concern about a tool which provides these?

I would love to hear what has you concerned about a tool which provides a piece of information which is, by law (California Penal Code Section 830.10), supposed to be accessible to all individuals interacting with the officer - their name and/or badge number.