[epa]

[flagged]

[SimianSci]

Technology cannot be wholly divorced from its ethical considerations. If a technology's founder has a multitude of ethical blindspots and has shown a willingness to modify such technology to suit his own desires, it is something which should be noted, discussed, and considered.

As professionals, it is absolutely crucial that we discuss matters of ethics. One of which is the issue of an unethical founder.

[throw123xz]

The founder is very hands on and in the context of the recent "issues" xAI experienced, which happens to match some of the founder's political views, any discussion about xAI has to touch on Musk.

You having issues with any criticism of Musk is a bit weird though. I'm not going to say that the moderators should be better, but it's also disappointing to see some users always jumping in to defend Musk when his companies, products and actions (via DOGE, for example) are criticized.

[yks]

Ethics aside, we do not understand the technology enough to disentangle its outputs from the biases of its inputs. See the "Emergent misalignment" paper. The founder is clearly seeking to inject his ideology into this technology, so it is prudent to expect the technology to suffer in subtle and yet unidentified ways. This is Lysenkoism but for LLMs.

[protocolture]

If you are going to be angry at anyone for politicizing grok, its the founder, not the commenters on HN.

[rsynnott]

I mean, the technology in question has just been in the news for, in quick succession, promoting a 'white genocide' conspiracy theory, and getting a bit uncomfortably sceptical about the holocaust. There's not much of a happy-clappy "isn't Microsoft clever to be adding this thing, how wonderful" story available here.

[nomel]

This is false [1], unless they left within the past 13 hours.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang

[epa]

See how you get downvoted for your comment. Redditzation is complete.