Testing AI LLMs: Grok the winner on neutrality

The Neutrality Project

Why Elon Musk bought Twitter | Seth Dillon

"We [The Babylon Bee] have a refusal to treat silliness seriously"

-- Seth Dillon

Towards the end: Free Speech isn't enough. It's the start.  The news media, social media, commenters, news reporters all have a responsibility to get it right. To report the Truth. There is such a thing. Not "your" truth, or "my" truth. But THE truth. 

The Babylon Bee is the new -- and better -- The Onion, which has gone off because it went Woke. 

They're a bunch of practicing Christians at the Babylon Bee. But, atheist me, I don't mind. They make nice jokes. 

A 2018 headline: "CNN Purchases Industrial-Sized Washing Machine To Spin News Before Publication." 

This specific headline became highly famous after the fact-checking website Snopes officially rated the satirical article as "false". Fact-checked! Yikes!

The Truth About Elon Musk's Wealth | All-in pod and Steven Mark Ryan

Follow-on from my post just now. 

Courtesy of Aussie YouTuber Steven Mark Ryan. 

Brings us a discussion by the All-in pod bros: Jason Calacanis, David Sacks, David Friedberg, Chamath.

With some clear explanations of how and why Elon became a trillionaire. As Sacks points out: he has not one single dollar more in cash today than he had last month. All that's happened is that the public has valued the stock he has in a company he created at more than it was when it was private.  

Why Europe could never produce an Elon Musk. Nikos Sotirakopoulos. An ex-communist, turned Common-sensical. 

Imagine Elon Musk is truly evil…

So much disinformation and misinformation about Elon Musk. 

My sum of it all: His haters are either knaves or fools. Either dishonest knaves (disinformation) or ignorant fools (misinformation). 

Disinformation is false info that’s deliberately out out there because you don’t like the person. 

Misinformation is spread by ignorance. You near something bad about a person you hate; you’re happy to spread it because it harms the person you hate.

Like Brivael Le Pogam (below) I also read and listened to lots by and about Musk. Even more than Brivael I think. 

Even before Musk was hated by the Left today, I was reading about him. 

I’ve read four books about Elon and his companies, so far:

• Elon Musk, by Walter Isaacson. 
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX…. by Ashlee Vance. 
• Character Limit: How Elon Musk Destroyed Twitter by Kate Conger and Ryan Mac. 
• The Book of Elon, by Eric Jorgenson. 

None of these books is a hagiography. None is by an Elon fan-boy. The Twitter one is downright hostile to Elon, though not aged at all well, given the clear improvements to Twitter now X.

The best of the books is the one by Walter Isaacson. He followed Elon everywhere, every day for two years. He’s written a terrific bio, so elegantly written it’s a real page turner. 

Then there’s Elon on social media. Multiple long-form interviews with people like Alex Fridman and Joe Rogan. Even the BBC.

From all of this I get a feel for Elon Musk and what drives him. As Brivael says below, at the top of the list there’s Freedom. Musk tries to contribute to the flourishing of freedom for humanity. “I’m a big fan of humanity” says Musk. He talks often of his drive “to keep alight the fragile flame of human consciousness”. All of these are life aims repeated often by Elon. But his haters ignore this. Instead they run a narrative that all he’s doing is to try to enrich himself by more “tax breaks for billionaires”. But Enrichment is a byproduct not the aim.

So, no, I’m don’t buy any of the nonsense that’s spread by people who used to love him when he was, so they thought, on “their side”, but made a big move to support another party, another candidate for president, namely Donald Trump. That alone sent them out of their minds.  Yet Elon didn’t change. His values, his aims, didn’t change. His commitment to his companies, his commitment to help progress humanity, didn’t change. 

Anyway, below are Brivael Le Pogam’s thoughts in this. Were it not for the X platform I would never have known of this man Brivael writing in his native French. A man who seems widely read in all the major French philosophers, and writes about them often and elegantly. Philosophers like René Girard, who again, I’d not heard of. Now know, thanks to X. Thanks, IOW, Elon.

Artificial Intelligence Civil Wars

I’ve noted before how often different AI Large Language Models like Claude, ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Grok, can give very different answers to the same question. You’ve got to be super careful and double-check everything.

Case in point:

Famous Car guy Sandy Munro says he has sold his company Munro & Associates. Revealed in a recent vid on Tesla Jigsaw YouTube channel, at a gathering of Tesla fans in Austria.

Seemed a genuine statement to me. I wanted to know when the sale had happened and how much Sandy had sold it for. I asked Google’s Gemini AI, and this is its answer:

Sandy Munro has not sold his company, Munro & Associates. [1, 2]

His statement about selling was a playful comment or misinterpretation. He recently appeared in an unfiltered interview at the Tesla Takeover event in Austria on the Tesla Jigsaw X feed, where he dropped a surprise "I sold my company" line at the end. [1]

Because it was part of an unfiltered, informal chat—and as he often teases retirement—this was widely understood within the community as a lighthearted quip rather than a literal business acquisition announcement. As such, no company sale date or financial figure exists for a formal buyout. Munro remains at the helm of his engineering and manufacturing consulting firm. [1, 2]

Hmmm…

Let’s ask Grok. Where I gave Grok the link to the video and Gemini’s response that it’s all a joke. Fact check please. Here’s Grok’s comment:

Sandy Munro did say he sold his company (Munro & Associates) in the recent interview video you linked (from June 10, 2026, at the Tesla Takeover event in Austria). It does not appear to be a joke based on the context and delivery. 

Key Details from the Video and Context

•  In the interview with Tesla Jigsaw (around the 27:15 timestamp in the full video), Sandy states: “All right. So, um, I sold my company.” He frames it positively as an opportunity for “something more rewarding,” mentioning “divine intervention” and stepping back from day-to-day decisions/ownership responsibilities while still being involved in a less operational role (e.g., not doing “GM-type thinking”). 

•  The interviewer and video title/description treat it as a genuine “bombshell” about selling Munro & Associates, his long-running engineering consulting firm known for Lean Design, teardowns, and benchmarking (especially Tesla-related work). 

•  No indications in the clip or related discussion that it’s sarcasm or kidding—Sandy’s tone aligns with his straightforward, opinionated style on other topics in the same interview (e.g., legacy auto, Elon Musk, EVs).

Supporting Evidence (or Lack Thereof)

•  Company status: The official Munro & Associates site (leandesign.com) remains fully active, promoting services, team work, and Sandy’s legacy. No announcements of a sale, rebranding, or shutdown. 

•  Public reaction: Recent X posts and shares of the video treat the statement as factual news from the interview, with no widespread claims it’s a joke. Older references to Sandy and the company don’t contradict this. 

•  No independent confirmations yet of a buyer, deal details, or ownership change in news sources (as of now—it’s a very recent video). This is common for private company transactions; they often aren’t publicized immediately with full details.

Bottom Line

It looks legitimate: Sandy has likely sold (majority) ownership of Munro & Associates, allowing him more freedom to speak candidly, travel, and pursue other interests (consistent with his age and long career since founding the firm in 1988/1989). He may still consult or be affiliated in some capacity, which explains why the company website and branding continue unchanged. 

No red flags for it being a prank or exaggeration. If more details emerge (e.g., via Munro Live channel or official statements), they should clarify further. The video is worth watching in full for the broader context of his comments.

Well, I dunno. Grok’s answer strikes me as more well thought out than Gemini’s. By the way I did tell Gemini about the video. Which you see from above it simply dismissed as a “playful comment”. Maybe Sandy has the best poker face of all time. But it didn’t seem like kidding to me. Would one kid about selling a super well known company? 

Time will tell. My money’s on the Grok analysis.

But, yet again, this tells us how much we need to be wary of AI answers and analyses. 

French poison. The “logic” that created Woke

An Occasional Reader, an Israeli, resident in Tel Aviv, asked me the other day: “why did the world turn so suddenly and completely against Israel?”. She thought it was “difficult to understand”. 

I said I thought it was easy to explain. Even if each of the individual reasons is complex, the overall is easy to understand. It’s the “Red-Green alliance”. Red being the lefties. Green being Islamist. 

They share a common enemy. The west. 

The West is Enemy to the Reds because they believe in socialism, communism, and so the need to overthrow capitalism. Which means overthrowing the West.

The West is enemy to the Greens because Islam must dominate the whole world. The West defends freedom of religion, especially Judeo-Christianity. So they must overthythe West to overcome their main enemies, the enemies of Allah.

Part of the brainwashing of the Left, so that they buy-in to overthrowing the West, has been “the long march through the institutions” by a soft and sneaky form of Marxism. The Marxism of post-Modernism. Cultural Marxism. Neo-Marxism. 

Which Brivael Le Pogan describes below. Writing in French. Translated by X:

I want to offer my apologies, on behalf of the French, for giving birth to French Theory (which in turn gave birth to the worst of all ideological monstrosities: wokism).

We gave the world Descartes, Pascal, Tocqueville. And then, in the intellectual ruins of post-1968, we gave Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. Three brilliant men who forged, in the elegance of our language, the ideological weapon that today paralyzes the West.

We must understand what they did. Foucault taught that truth does not exist, that there are only power relations disguised as knowledge. That science, reason, justice, the medical institution, the school, the prison, sexuality—everything is merely a staging of domination. Derrida taught that texts have no stable meaning, that every signifier slips away, that every reading is a betrayal, that the author is dead and the reader reigns supreme. Deleuze taught that we should prefer the rhizome to the tree, the nomad to the sedentary, desire to the law, becoming to being, difference to identity.

Taken individually, these are debatable theses. Combined, exported, and popularized, they form a system. And that system is a poison.

For here’s what happened. These texts, unreadable in France, crossed the Atlantic. The departments of Yale, Berkeley, and Columbia absorbed them in the 1980s. They found there a soil that did not exist among us: American Puritanism, its racial guilt, its obsession with identity. French Theory married this substratum, and the child of that union is called wokism.

Judith Butler reads Foucault and invents performative gender. Edward Said reads Foucault and invents academic postcolonialism. Kimberlé Crenshaw inherits the framework and invents intersectionality. At every step, the matrix is French: there is no truth, there is only power, so every hierarchy is suspect, every institution is oppressive, every norm is violence, every identity is constructed and thus negotiable, every majority is guilty.

That’s how three Parisian philosophers, who probably never imagined their practical consequences, provided the operating software to an entire generation of activists, university bureaucrats, HR managers, journalists, and legislators. That’s how we ended up with a civilization that no longer knows how to say whether a woman is a woman, whether its own history is worth defending, whether merit exists, whether truth can be distinguished from opinion.

It’s shit for one simple reason, and it must be stated calmly. A civilization stands on three pillars: the belief that there exists a truth accessible to reason, the belief that there exists a good distinct from evil, the belief that there exists a heritage to be transmitted. French Theory set out to dynamite all three. Not out of malice. Out of intellectual play, fascination with suspicion, hatred of the bourgeoisie that had nurtured them. But the result is there. An entire generation learned to deconstruct and never learned to build. An entire generation knows how to suspect and no longer knows how to admire. An entire generation sees power everywhere and beauty nowhere.

I apologize because we French bear a particular responsibility. It’s our language, our universities, our publishers, our prestige that gave this nihilism its chic packaging. Without the legitimacy of the Sorbonne and Vincennes, these ideas would never have crossed the ocean. We exported doubt the way others export weapons.

What is being built now, in Silicon Valley, in AI labs, in startups, in workshops, in all the places where people still make things instead of deconstructing them—that is the response. A civilization is rebuilt by builders, not by commentators. By those who believe that truth exists and is worth devoting oneself to. By those who embrace a hierarchy of the beautiful, the true, the good, and are not ashamed to transmit it.

So, forgive us. And back to work. 

H/t @Brivael

”America’s Cultural Revolution” by Christopher Rufo, covers this topic. A good read.

U.S. Civil war in 2030…

Green Beret’s prediction, below, strikes me as plausible. Why? Because Democrats tell us that that’s what they’re going to do. Pack SCOTUS, open borders to increase their voter base, create new states that will be Democrat, gerrymander purple and red states, arrest anyone who was in the Trump administration, or anyone MAGA. They tell us that on CNN, in The New York Times.

Result: a supermajority for Democrats. All America becomes like California, where Republicans have no hope of winning state power ever again. i.e. America becomes a One Party State. A UniState. Now you might approve of this because you like the Dems. But traditionally we’ve thought very dimly of one party states. At the very least authoritarian. 

The Democrats are far better organised than the Republicans. Who can’t even bring themselves to pass the SAVE Act….

Green Beret Nap Time, post on X:

Here’s what I think is going to happen. 

The right is going to lose in 2026, not because Democrats have better or more popular policies, but because of voter fatigue on the right from constant propaganda meant to divide us… which is clearly working.

They threw out all of the stops, never missing an opportunity to push so many lies from so many angles that most people simply can’t process what is real and what is fiction.

So, we lose.

It won’t seem too drastic at first, but it will hamstring the Trump admin enough and tie him and those that remain loyal up in impeachments and other nonsense that will make his admin ineffective.

This will create more doubt on the right as Democrats and our adversaries pump more propaganda into the space, highlighting the ineffectiveness. 

Morale will drop even further.

Then we are really going to lose in 2028. We are going give Democrats and the Halal Right a supermajority, which they will use to pack the court, open the borders again, send more money to Islamist and left leaning causes, reestablish DEI policies, proliferate troon ideology, and ultimately start chipping away at the Constitution.

It will only take a year or two with that kind of juice behind the effort and a supermajority pushing through legislation.

The SCOTUS will be unable to stop unconstitutional laws because of the new leftist majority make up.

A hot Civil War will start in the south, but it won’t feel like a civil war (no real clear sides, more like insurgent warfare of rural vs urban). Media and influencers will push it as anti-American insurgents trying to attack other Americans.

Rights will be suspended. The Patriot Act will be used to identify and lock up tens of thousands.

Martial law will be implemented.

American foreign policy will crumble with the domestic issues. 

China and Russia will move forward in the world stage and systematically rewrite alliances.

World wars will likely break out as a result.

By 2030… the word will be a bleak and terrible place…

But hey, at least a bunch of influencers made money off of centuries old propaganda made for illiterate peasants.

Fun times.

Western women betray Iranian women | Masih Alinejad

Masih Alinejad is an Iranian journalist and activist, based now in America. 

I’ve posted about her going back to 2010, see here. It seems I’ve always called her a “brave Iranian woman”. Indeed she is, a bravery she shares with all Iranian women. 

She was most recently on CNN giving the host, Dana Bash, conniptions for being so gloriously happy at the killing of the Ayatollah and 48 of his co-thugs. 

CNN have scrubbed their clip, it seems, but here’s Masih calling it a “day of celebration” on CBS.

A celebration, a happiness she shares with millions of her compatriots around the world. And on the streets of Iran.

In her X post below, she has a go at Elizabeth Warren for hypocrisy. Western liberal women have failed to support women in the Middle East, because … well… kind of “who knows”, except that they were not in the hated, misogynist, imperialist, racist America and so “you can’t pass judgement”. Or something.

Masih’s post:

I’m not just angry. I’m furious with you Elizabeth Warren. 

Stop using the suffering of my people as political ammunition  against Donald Trump.

You say you are grieving for those killed in this “unnecessary war.”

Really?  I checked your social media. More than 20 posts attacking President Trump after he removed a monster terrorist of Iran, Ali Khamenei, but not one post grieving the massacre of more than 32,000 unarmed Iranian people. Why? Shocking.

More than 10,000 protesters were intentionally blinded by security forces. Young women were shot in the eyes. Students were beaten to death. Families were burying their children. Where were you then?

We are not a tool. The pain of us Iranians is not a talking point for your partisan battles.

As a woman, your silence while women in Iran were being shot, jailed, and blinded is more than disappointing. It is insulting. No it is  beyond that. It is a slap in the face of Iranian mothers burying their children who have been killed by Islamic Republic. 

I cannot ignore this hypocrisy.

Our suffering did not fit your narrative. Our voices were inconvenient. Now that the situation serves your political agenda, you speak loudly.

Very heartbreaking to see, powerful women in the West totally ignoring Iranians being slaughtered. 💔 Link to Masih's X post

Related: Iranian activist women are so beautiful, 25 June 2025

To make AI safe: make it "maximally truth seeking" | Elon Musk

I did say, when I posted about the dangers of AI, here, that Elon Musk would be looking at this, for sure. 

And here he is. 

The danger is reduced, according to him, if it is made "maximally truth seeking". 

Grok is not perfect. But it's way better than the comp. In terms of giving decent answers to complex questions. 

It is at least trying to be Maximally Truth Seeking. Because that's what it's been tasked to do. 

Beware of AI. It gets things wrong... all the time!

I’ve used AI a lot. ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Perplexity, Grok. Grok is the best IMO. Has the fewest hallucinations and is "fundamentally truth seeking”, which drags it away from pursuing a narrative. 

In the case above, I asked Grok the same questions that had been asked of ChatGPT. Grok resolutely refused to give a “Yes or No” answer. 

It kept coming back against each push by me, with the line — correct, I believe — that the questions were too complex and too nuanced for a binary "yes" or "no" answer. 

Still, Grok gets things wrong. It will get data wrong and generate silly charts. Sometimes wildly so. If you count on AI for anything serious, you absolutely have to double and triple check its answers.

The worst AI is DeepSeek. The Chinese one. Anything about China, current affairs or political issues, forget about it. If you want to know about the Cultural Revolution or the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, or anything about the current mass purge of the Generals in the Central Military Commission, forget about it. DeepSeek will refuse. No amount of pushing will get it to change its mind. 

An example of ChatGPT’s world view, which is the world view of its young leftie training team:

From here 

Of course there are plenty on the Left who’ll say “but this is true!”. 

And I’ll say “no it’s not”. I know plenty of conservatives who are decent, honest folk. I know Democrats who are horrid to people who simply have a different opinion from them. I used to think Obama wonderful, but now see that he was the one who began the race-grift game, and did harm in the Middle East with his Iran policies. Elon Musk is doing vastly more for the world — Starlink, electric cars, Neuralink —- than he’s “bad” because he shifted support to Trump. 

And… Woke is usually batshit crazy.

So, yeah, like Grok, there's many questions can’t be answered by a simple "yes" or "no". 

Communists in America | “Insurrection Barbie”

It Feels Like a Communist Revolution Because It Is: The International Network Behind MN "ICE Out"

Insurrection Barbie (@DefiyantlyFree) 3K likes · 124 replies x.com

Is this neo-McCarthyism? To be worried, again, as we were in the fifties, about "Reds under the beds"? 

Well, no. 

Because then, in the 1950s it was all about individuals who had some connection, past or present, to the Communist Party. Now it's about whole organizations. All of them avowed, self-styled communists, being quite open about their communist sympathies. People like AOC, Jasmine Crockett, Zohran Mamdani… and many more. Members of Socialsts for America, of the organisations in the post above. 

So what? Is it something to fear? 

I say yes it is. This is something to fear. 

From my experience of living in Communist China in the 1970s. Food and clothing was rationed. Why? Because the government was in charge of every single aspect of life, and they're simply not good at running an economy. If one objected to any aspect of this despotism, it was off to Labour camp (劳改) for you! It's a One-Party state, so you can forget your worries about "democracy"… there is none. 

I can't vouch foe every fact in the above paper. But the thrust is correct. The Democratic Party has ,moved so far left, many influential members are outright communists. And proudly so.

Be not proud, friends! Be afraid.  

ADDED: 

• Bill Maher. “Mamdani is a straight-up communist”
• Xi Van Fleet is a refugee from China, in the days I knew it. When it was very Communist. She suffered under communism, as did hundreds of millions. She warns:

I grew up in Communist China. I saw how the CCP exploited their followers and discarded them when no longer useful .

The pattern is the same everywhere. Causes like this depend on useful idiots to rise.

Don’t be one.

 

Grok Imagines. By "Grok Imagine".

 

What's the Truth? How do you find it? (Spoiler: Rigorous Inquiry)

"How do you know what the Truth is?" asks a guest at our Boxing Day Recovery Buffett. 

"Good question," I answer. 

Before launching into a confusing, half-baked answer to her question. Where I got lost in a tangle of brambles and a wilderness of weeds, about my time as an intelligence analyst in the Australian government, back in the 1980s. Where I had to make judgements about which incoming Intelligence info should be passed on up the chain -- all the way to the Prime Minister -- and which should be binned in the Classified Trash. I mean, kind of relevant to the question, but also kind of roundabout and incoherent. 

Recovered the next morning, I sent her a text saying again "good question", and that I'd not really answered it well. I wanted to add some factors. Like: 

1.  Primary Sources: Make sure you look at, delve into, Primary Sources. And.. 

2.  Many Sources: Look at the media from Left to Right; where there's intersection is more likely to be truth. As I covered years ago, here. (See the Venn Diagram at top). 

I should have added some more. Like: 

3. Read past the Headline. I've been surprised, but now no longer, at just how many friends and rellies will happily admit to reading only the headline of an article. I had one tell me, proudly!: "I only read the headlines from the Guardian". I mean: not that you'll always get nonsense by reading only the Guardian, but for sure you'll always get only one side, the far Left side, of a story. And one of the things about seeking the Truth is that it's rarely a monopoly of just one side of an argument. If you read past the headlines, there's often times when the contents of a story itself will reverse what the headline says. 

4. Social Media: We have to rely on it, at least for some of our news and for some of our Truth-seeking. But the biases are very different across the range. Reddit is way more slanted to the Dems than is YouTube, for example. The most balanced, by Pew Research results, is X, the Twitter platform that Elon Musk bought and made Free Speech its guiding light:

The most skewed is Bluesky, the X equivalent on the Left

A good topic for the first day of the New Year, is it not? How do we know what The Truth is? So therefore...

I asked my AI about this Truth business. The first two items it mentioned were exactly those I texted the Boxing Day questioner above: Primary Sources. And Many Sources. 

Here's the rest of AI's answer to my question "How can we tell the Truth about Event X?"

When two people hold conflicting views on "Event X", determining the truth requires systematic critical thinking rather than accepting one side outright.

Start by seeking primary evidence: original documents, videos, eyewitness accounts, or data directly related to X. 

Avoid relying solely on interpretations.Consult diverse, credible sources representing all perspectives—reputable news outlets, academic studies, fact-checking sites (e.g., FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, Snopes), and expert analyses. 

Look for consensus among independent verifiers; agreement across biases strengthens reliability.

Evaluate sources for credibility: Check author expertise, potential biases, and whether claims are supported by verifiable evidence, not just opinions or anecdotes.

Identify logical fallacies, emotional appeals, or selective framing in arguments. Ask: What evidence would falsify each view? Be open to updating your beliefs.

Truth about events is often probabilistic, not absolute—aim for the most justified conclusion based on available evidence. 

Recognize personal biases may cloud judgment; steelman opposing views to test them fairly.

Absolute certainty is rare, but rigorous inquiry gets closest to reality.

And there, ladies and gentlemen, we have our first and very serious, New Year's Resolution: Let us commit to "Rigorous Inquiry"!

“Don’t stand with bigots”. Seth Dillon on anti-antisemitism

 

A long video, but an important one. Seth Dillon talks about the challenges of resisting Antisemitism which I prefer to call “Jew hatred”. The massive rise of Jew hatred on the far right and its long-time existence on the Left. The importance of standing for the Good and the True. Of resisting “the narrative”, the narrative of the Jews being uniquely perfidious, uniquely the cause of all world problems, all world wars.

Seth is a good and true man himself, very eloquent. He says the issue is not that Israel is untouchable, that, as the Narrative claims, “you can’t criticise Israel” because it has power over Washington. The opposite is the case. If you criticise the narrative, criticise the Jew haters, that’s when you get the vicious pushback and death threats. You can build a flourishing business off Jew hatred, says Seth. Thin on that. 

I stand with Israel and the Jewish people. 

ADDED: Seth talks a lot about Free Speech. It was his company, The Babylon Bee, a conservative Christian parody website, that was banned on the then Twitter and which prompted Elon Musk into buying it for 44 Billion, to open it to free speech and rename it "X". Which people seem to have got used to. 

Democrats calling Republicans fascists and encouraging violence| Winsome Earle-Sears

	Winsome Earle-Sears ⁦‪@winwithwinsome‬⁩ Charlie Kirk's assassin wrote on the bullet casing: Hey Fascist! Catch! Here are two minutes of Democrat politicians calling Republicans fascists and encouraging violence: pic.x.com/da7J1r1PuA   13/9/2025, 4:23 am

Sent from my iPad

Artificial Intelligences are all Lefties

I use five main ones. Grok (X), ChatGPT (OpenAI), Perplexity (private, including Jeff Bezos), Gemini (Google) and DeepSeek (China's entry).

They all lean Left. I guess if you're on the Left yourself you may not notice, because that's the sea you swim in. 

I notice because I lean Centre to Heterodox (I insist...), and the AI's take on any topic that 's in the realm of "not science", but, say, current affairs or politics, then AI's take is one I'll often have an issue with. 

Which leads to one of my things — arguing with AI, usually with minimal success. 

The reason that all AI is Left is simple. The universe of their research base is Left. They refer mostly to the Mainstream Media -- the likes of CNN, MSNBC, PBS, BBC, ABC, The New York Times, the Washington Post, and even Al-Jazeera. In Social media they refer to Reddit, Instagram, Tik Tok. Often they  go to Wikipedia, which used to be fine, but veered Left under the stewardship of that crazy lady who now runs NPR, Katherine Maher. She who said in a Ted Talk, that her main "challenge" was the First Amendment of the United States, that guarantor of Free Speech. Because that stopped her and her NPR from running the Leftist agenda at full tilt. (Though she and they did a pretty good job anyway).

AI doesn't agree its answers lean Left. Try accusing them of that. Or of being Woke. They'll deny it vehemently. We're only after providing as much information as possible, they'll say. We report as neutrally as possible, they'll  insist. Grok will say "I am directed to be maximally truth-seeking". But if the "truth" that it seeks is tilted in a biased way, then the AI is going to be biased itself. It's inevitable. 

Or else they can be biased by Omission, rather than Commission. 

I took one simple example the other day. At my request on a particular topic, Grok was listing its sources and claimed that AP was "neutral". When I challenged that, Grok said that the Associated Press is just a service, which sends out the news to subscribers, like newspapers, who then may or may not print it. I said that often a leaning one way or the other was not so much by Commission, but by Omission. 

For example, you could decide not to run stories that don't align with the Left's view. That's bias by Omission. My example was the recent case of the Ukrainian refugee, Iryna Zarutska, who was randomly, needlessly, brutally, horribly murdered by an unemployed Black man, on a subway car in Charlotte. The Left media, all of it, including AP, did not report it. It only became a story after people highlighted a video on X (oooh... how the Left hates X!). 

That's an example of bias by Omission. Grok -- amazingly -- granted my point. 

Was it important to know about a random murder of a random person by a random man? Does it help AI to be maximally truthful, in this particular case, in this particular way? Well, yes. It does. Because it raises many live issues: about refugees in the US, about homelessness, about crime and incarceration (the killer had been arrested and released 14 times already), about mental health and how to deal with it (the murderer had deep mental health issues). 

These are all very much live issues in the United States, and indeed in the world. But in this case, the Left media constellation had tried to suppress the story -- because, as Brian Stelter said on CNN, to do so is... you guessed it... racist! 

Because the constellation of liberal media, the majority of all media, had ignored it, so too had all the AIs. (Until X). And that is distinctly a bias to the Left. 

Still, would I rather have the AI Apps? Of course. And so would we all, I'm sure. The ability to ask a very specific question that gets you an answer immediately, my goodness me, that it way better than the old "just Google it". 

Still, you have to take account of AI's leanings. Because you have to take account of the leanings of the broader media landscape. 

End of rant.

"What terrifies me is if ISIS were to detonate a nuclear device..." | Norm Macdonald

Norm Macdonald (@normmacdonald) x.com

What terrifies me is if ISIS were to detonate a nuclear device and kill 50 million Americans. Imagine the backlash against peaceful Muslims?

"What terrifies me is if ISIS were to detonate a nuclear device..."

"... Imagine the backlash against peaceful Muslims?" is the punch. (Click image above for the Tweet)

The late, great comic Norm Macdonald, making fun of, mocking in fact, people who are are concerned more with alleged or feared "Islamophobia" in the wake of a Muslim terrorist attack, than they are for the victims themselves. 

We see that now with the Minnesota school shooting by a Trans Woman. That is to say, a man who believes he is a woman. He murdered two innocent ten year old school children in the midst of their prayers. He wounded nearly twenty others. The fact that he's trans is relevant, for it's part of who he is. It played a part in his "thinking",  such as it is, that he wrote down in a garbled manifesto. 

But the worry, the deep worry, the concern of the Mayor of Minneapolis and of the media was not for the lost lives of these young children and for their families. The concern was for the trans man, and worry that he might be "tarred with a bigoted brush". And thus fearsome attacks on all who dared to mention the fact that he's trans. Shaming them as "pointing fingers". And the mayor, Jacob Frey, says; "I worry about the trans kids". Huh! Not about the murdered children and their families. About the trans kids. 

This is both stupid and revolting. 

Stupid for the fact that it doesn't help us understand his motives. And revolting for their abandonment of murdered children and their grieving families. They even attacked that fact that they were praying. "What good did it do them?" they mocked. Shocking. Even to an atheist like me. 

If it's not Islamophobia trumping people killed by Islamic terror, then it's Transphobia trumping the murder of children. I've got Phobia-phobia. I'm sick to death of these made-up "phobias" that are made up to stop any criticism, made to stop even any informed analysis of why "some people do some things", to misquote the forever aggrieved Muslim member of Congress Ilhan Omar. 

Comments at the site of Norm's Tweet are interesting: 

Daniel Tweet here

"British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow's Train Bombing". 

And: "They literally did the Norm tweet":

Rosey Tweet here

Leftist lady: "Tell me what MAGA men find attractive so I can wear the complete Opposite"

Click above or here. 

And the answers are: "don't worry, lady, you're doing fine". Heh!

Brian Hirsh (Thor)

@BrianHirsh 

Aug 25

Young lady, just keep doing what you're doing. You don't need to change a thing. That inner ugly permeates everywhere.

Some others:

Kinda cute, even for an atheist

aka: Affluent White Female Urban Liberals. AWFULs.

Cruel? Yeah, I guess. But not as cruel as the Left labelling anyone to the Right of them as Nazis, Fascists, Dictators, Authoritarians, White Supremacists…. Or, if they’re conservative and Black, they’re smeared as “Uncle Toms” or “house negroes”. How dare they?

It’s some ultra-woke women who have ruined legendary companies. Bud Light, Harley Davidson, Cracker Barrel. All of a type. You can really tell them just by looking. Their Rachel Maddow-type glasses, heavy black frames. Blue hair. Nose ring.

Sigh…