I'm surprised it isn't just Elon typing really fast at this point.

Probably couldn't type fast if he tried. Would probably pay someone to do it for him just like he did with Path if Exile.

If the system prompt doesn’t tell it to search for Elon’s views, why is it doing that?

My best guess is that Grok “knows” that it is “Grok 4 buit by xAI”, and it knows that Elon Musk owns xAI, so in circumstances where it’s asked for an opinion the reasoning process often decides to see what Elon thinks.

Yeah, this blogger shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs work or how system prompts work. LLM behavior is not directly controlled by the system prompt the way this person imagines. For example, censorship that is present in the training set will be "baked in" to the model and the system prompt will not affect it, no matter how the LLM is told not to be censored in that way.

My best guess is that the LLM is interfacing with a tool in order to search through tweets, and the training set that demonstrates how to use the tool contains example searches for Elon Musk's tweets.

They deliberately injected prompts on top of the users prompt.

Saying that’s a problem of AI is akin to say me deliberately painting my car badly and saying it’s a problem of all car manufacturers.

And this frankly shows how little you know about the subject, because we went through this years ago with prompts trying to force corpo-lib “diversity” and leading to hilarious results.

If anything you should be concerned about the non prompt stuff, the underlying training data that it pulls from and of which I doubt Grok has even changed since release.

Grok's journey has been very strange. He became a progressive, then threw out data that contradicted the MAGA people who questioned him, and finally became a Hitler fan.

Now he's the reflection of a fan who blindly follows Trump, but in this case, he's an AI. His journey so far has been curious.

“This blogger” is Simon Willison, who has been doing LLM benchmarks and other LLM-related things since before it was cool

Not a random substack grifter

Is my comment wrong though? Another possibility is that Grok is given an example of searching for Elon Musk's tweets when it is presented with the available tool calls. Just because it outputs the system prompt when asked does not mean that we are seeing the full context, or even the real system prompt.

Posting blog guides on how to code with ChatGPT is not expertise on LLMs. It's like thinking someone is an expert mechanic because they can drive a car well.

And like he does with inseminating women.

Willison has never claimed to be an expert in the field of machine learning, but you should give more credence to his opinions. Perhaps u/lepinkainen@lemmy.world's warning wasn't informative enough to be heeded: Willison is a prominent figure in the web-development scene, particularly aspects of the scene that have evolved into important facets of the modern machine learning community.

The guy is quite experienced with Python and took an early step into the contemporary ML/AI space due to both him having a lot of very relevant skills and a likely personal interest in the field. Python is the lingua franca of my field of study, for better or worse, and someone like Willison was well-placed to break into ML/AI from the outside. That's a common route in this field, there aren't exactly an abundance of MBAs with majors in machine learning or applied artificial intelligence research, specifically (yet). Willison is one of the authors of Django, for fucks sake. Idk what he's doing rn but it would be ignorant to draw the comparison you just did in the context of Willison particularly. [EDIT: Lmfao just went to see "what is Simon doing rn" (don't really keep up with him in particular), & you're talking out of your ass. He literally has multiple tools for the machine learning stack that he develops and that are available to see on his github. See one such here. This guy is so far away from someone who just "posts random blog guides on how to code with ChatGPT" that it's egregious you'd even claim that. It's so disingenuous as to ere into dishonesty; like, that is a patent lie. Smh.]

As for your analysis of his article, I find it kind of ironic you accuse him of having a "fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs work or how system prompts work [sic]" when you then proceed to cherry-pick certain lines from his article taken entirely out of context. First, the article is clearly geared towards a more general audience and avoids technical language or explanation. Second, he doesn't say anything that is fundamentally wrong. Honestly, you seem to have a far more ignorant idea of LLMs and this field generally than Willison. You do say some things that are wrong, such as:

For example, censorship that is present in the training set will be “baked in” to the model and the system prompt will not affect it, no matter how the LLM is told not to be censored in that way.

This isn't necessarily true. It is true that information not included within the training set, or information that has been statistically biased within the training set, isn't going to be retrievable or reversible using system prompts. Willison never claims or implies this in his article, you just kind of stuff those words in his mouth. Either way, my point is that you are using wishy-washy, ambiguous, catch-all terms such as "censorship" that make your writings here not technically correct, either. What is censorship, in an informatics context? What does that mean? How can it be applied to sets of data? That's not a concretely defined term if you're wanting to take the discourse to the level that it seems you are, like it or not. Generally you seem to have something of a misunderstanding regarding this topic, but I'm not going to accuse you of that, lest I commit the same fallacy I'm sitting here trying to chastise you for. It's possible you do know what you're talking about and just dumbed it down for Lemmy. It's impossible for me to know as an audience.

That all wouldn't really matter if you didn't just jump as Willison's credibility over your perception of him doing that exact same thing, though.

Willison has never claimed to be an expert in the field of machine learning, but you should give more credence to his opinions.

Yeah, I would if he didn't demonstrate such blatant misconceptions.

Willison is a prominent figure in the web-development scene

"They know how to sail a boat so they know how a car engine works"

Willison never claims or implies this in his article, you just kind of stuff those words in his mouth.

Reading comprehension. I never implied that he says anything about censorship. It is a correct and valid example that shows how his understanding is wrong about how system prompts work. "Define censorship" is not the argument you think it is lol. Okay though, I'll define the "censorship" I'm talking about as refusal behavior that is introduced during RLHF and DPO alignment, and no the system prompt will not change this behavior.

EDIT: saw your edit about him publishing tools that make using an LLM easier. Yeahhhh lol writing python libraries to interface with LLM APIs is not LLM expertise, that's still just using LLMs but programatically. See analogy about being a mechanic vs a good driver.

Ketamine took its toll

BUT LISTEN CLOSE-LYyyy

I never implied that he says anything about censorship

You did, at least that's what I gathered originally, you just edited your original comments quite extensively. Regardless,

Reading comprehension.

The provided example was clearly not intended to be taken as "define censorship," and, again, it is ironic you accuse me of having poor reading comprehension while being incapable or unwilling to give a respectable degree of charitable interpretation to others. You kind of just take what you think is the easiest to argue against reading of others and argue against that instead of what anyone actually said, is a habit I'm noticing, but I digress.

Finally, not that it's particularly relevant, but if you want to define censorship in this context that way, you're more than welcome to, but it is a non-standard definition that I am not really sold on the efficacy of. I certainly won't be using it going forwards.

Anyway, I don't think we're gonna get a lot of ground here. I just felt the need to clarify to anyone reading that Willison isn't a nobody and give them the objective facts regarding his veracity, because again, as I said, claiming he is just some guy in this context is willfully ignorant at best.

if you want to define censorship in this context that way, you're more than welcome to, but it is a non-standard definition that I am not really sold on the efficacy of. I certainly won't be using it going forwards.

Lol you've got to be trolling.

https://arxiv.org/html/2504.03803v1

I just felt the need to clarify to anyone reading that Willison isn't a nobody

I didn't say he's a nobody. What was that about a "respectable degree of chartiable interpretation of others"? Seems like you're the one putting words in mouths, here.

If he was writing about django, I'd defer to his expertise.

Nope, not trolling at all.

From your own provided source on the arxiv, Noels et al. define censorship as:

Censorship in this context can be defined as the deliberate restriction, modification, or suppression of certain outputs generated by the model.

Which is starkly different from the definition you yourself gave. I actually like their definition a whole lot more. Your definition is problematic because it excludes a large set of behaviors we would colloquially be interested in when studying "censorship."

Again, for the third time, that was not really the point either and I'm not interested in dancing around a technical scope defining censorship in this field, at least in this discourse right here and now. It is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I didn’t say he’s a nobody. What was that about a “respectable degree of chartiable interpretation of others”? Seems like you’re the one putting words in mouths, here.

Yeah, this blogger shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how LLMs work or how system prompts work. (emphasis mine)

In the context of this field of work and study, you basically did call him a nobody, and the point being harped on again, again, and again to you is that this is a false assertion. I did interpret you charitably. Don't blame me because you said something wrong.

EDIT: And frankly, you clearly don't understand how the work Willison's career has covered is intimately related to ML and AI research. I don't mean it as a dig but you wouldn't be drawing this arbitrary line to try and discredit him if you knew how the work done in Python on Django directly relates to many modern machine learning stacks.

Source? This is just some random picture, I'd prefer if stuff like this gets posted and shared with actual proof backing it up.

While this might be true, we should hold ourselves to a standard better than just upvoting what appears to literally just be a random image that anyone could have easily doctored, not even any kind of journalistic article or etc backing it.

These people think there is their truth and someone else’s truth. They can’t grasp the concept of a universal truth that is constant regardless of people’s views so they treat it like it’s up for grabs.