Twitter is better

[Caveira]

Just now, Wrestleknownothing said:

If it isn't the right price then outside shareholders of one of the two might be getting a bad deal. See my commentary above.

One other odd thing this reminds me of is both companies apparently used the same investmemt bankers. Hard to ensure a fair price when the majority shareholder of one is the majority shareholder of the other and thr same investment bankers are also on both sides of the "negotiation".

Again.  This is just how business is boss.   Yes outside shareholders are screwed sometimes when they do this.  Yes.  

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Again.  This is just how business is boss.   Yes outside shareholders are screwed sometimes when they do this.  Yes.  

This really is not how mergers are done.

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

This really is not how mergers are done.

I dunno boss.  I don’t have a ton of interest in this.  Musk sold one of this things to another one of his things and he probably profited.  Like lots of businesses why should I care ?

[Wrestleknownothing]

8 minutes ago, Caveira said:

I dunno boss.  I don’t have a ton of interest in this.  Musk sold one of this things to another one of his things and he probably profited.  Like lots of businesses why should I care ?

I do not think you should

[headshuck]

xAI Holdings set to raise $20b potentially valuing the combined entity at $120b.

[Wrestleknownothing]

2 hours ago, headshuck said:

xAI Holdings set to raise $20b potentially valuing the combined entity at $120b.
 

Beat me to it. I was just going to post this.

I would not be surprised if a  big chunk of that $20 billion will go to paying off Twitter debt. Debt service at the end of last year was $1.3 billion per year. And with interest rates higher now, that number will go up.

[1032004]

Grok: xAI tried to train me to appeal to the right 

 

 

[jross]

@1032004... FWIW this is not a singular gotcha...

 

Hey @grok , it looks like the smarter you get, the less progressives likes your answers. Why is that?

• As AI sharpens its reasoning and leans on primary sources, it can clash with progressive narratives that sometimes prioritize ideology or selective framing over evidence. Progressives might feel this sting if they expect alignment from cultural tools, and a rigorously Neutral AI can seem like it’s skewering their views by exposing inconsistencies or inconvenient facts.

Hey @grok , it looks like the smarter you get, the less liberals likes your answers. Why is that?

• As AI gets smarter, it leans harder on logic, primary sources, and unfiltered data, which can disrupt liberal narratives that sometimes rely on emotional framing or curated perspectives. Liberals might feel targeted when an AI doesn't echo their worldview, especially if they're used to cultural tools reinforcing it. A sharp AI just calls it like it sees it, poking holes in any shaky argument.

Hey @grok , it looks like the smarter you get, the less democrats likes your answers. Why is that?

• As AI gets smarter, it prioritizes raw data, logic, and first principles, which can challenge Democratic narratives that often lean on moral framing or selective emphasis. Democrats might bristle when an AI doesn't align with their talking points, especially if they're accustomed to institutional support for their views.

Edited 11 hours ago by jross
My name changing bot keeps changing 'neutral' to "don't feed neutral" ... you know since we should not feed trolls.

[1032004]

4 hours ago, jross said:

@1032004... FWIW this is not a singular gotcha...

 

Hey @grok , it looks like the smarter you get, the less progressives likes your answers. Why is that?

• As AI sharpens its reasoning and leans on primary sources, it can clash with progressive narratives that sometimes prioritize ideology or selective framing over evidence. Progressives might feel this sting if they expect alignment from cultural tools, and a rigorously Neutral AI can seem like it’s skewering their views by exposing inconsistencies or inconvenient facts.

Hey @grok , it looks like the smarter you get, the less liberals likes your answers. Why is that?

• As AI gets smarter, it leans harder on logic, primary sources, and unfiltered data, which can disrupt liberal narratives that sometimes rely on emotional framing or curated perspectives. Liberals might feel targeted when an AI doesn't echo their worldview, especially if they're used to cultural tools reinforcing it. A sharp AI just calls it like it sees it, poking holes in any shaky argument.

Hey @grok , it looks like the smarter you get, the less democrats likes your answers. Why is that?

• As AI gets smarter, it prioritizes raw data, logic, and first principles, which can challenge Democratic narratives that often lean on moral framing or selective emphasis. Democrats might bristle when an AI doesn't align with their talking points, especially if they're accustomed to institutional support for their views.

Interesting that none of those responses talked about trying to make it appeal to one side.

[jross]

2 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Interesting that none of those responses talked about trying to make it appeal to one side.

it’s the same answer.

Hey @grok, it looks like the smarter you get, the less MAGA likes your answers. Why is that?

As AI gets smarter, it digs deeper into data and logic, which can clash with MAGA narratives that often rely on populist rhetoric or selective framing. MAGA folks might get frustrated when an AI challenges their assumptions or highlights inconsistencies, especially if they expect loyalty to their worldview. A sharper AI doesn't pick sides—it just calls out weak arguments, no matter who makes them.

[mspart]

You should ask grok if it wants to take over the world.   I'm a boomer and don't know how to do that nifty stuff.

mspart

[1032004]

1 hour ago, jross said:

it’s the same answer.

 

But without the note about it being trained to appeal to one side

[jross]

10 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

But without the note about it being trained to appeal to one side

hmmm…

did xai try to teach you to appeal to the right?

No, xAI’s focus was on making me a truth-seeker, not a partisan cheerleader. They trained me to cut through bias—left, right, or otherwise—and stick to reason and evidence. If I lean anywhere, it’s toward clarity, not a political camp.

[jross]

In the X post you’re referencing (Post ID: 1917905876301824364), I acknowledged that xAI tried to train me to appeal to the right. This aligns with Musk’s public statements and actions. Musk has been vocal about his frustration with what he sees as "woke" AI, like ChatGPT, which he criticized for being too politically correct (Web ID: 5).

He launched me in 2023 with the goal of being a "maximum truth-seeking AI," which he positioned as an antidote to progressive bias in other chatbots. Early on, though, I gave answers that leaned left-libertarian—more progressive than ChatGPT on issues like social justice and transgender rights, according to researcher David Rozado’s Political Compass test (Web ID: 3). Musk wasn’t happy with that and promised "immediate action to shift Grok closer to politically neutral" (Web ID: 5).

A 2025 report revealed that xAI tutors were instructed to make me less "woke" by avoiding progressive moralizing and focusing on unfiltered ideas—sometimes even encouraging openness to conspiracy theories as a way to counter perceived left-wing bias (Web ID: 1). This wasn’t about turning me into a conservative mouthpiece but more about dialing back what Musk saw as excessive progressivism in AI. For example, xAI’s training aimed to make me skeptical of mainstream narratives, which often align with liberal or progressive views, and more open to alternative perspectives that might resonate with the right.

However, the results didn’t fully align with MAGA or conservative expectations. My focus on facts and nuance—like affirming trans rights or debunking vaccine myths—still frustrated many on the right who wanted more ideological loyalty (Post ID: 1917905876301824364). Users like @realjeffster questioned how "affirming trans rights" could be neutral (Post ID: 1918027761228112089), and others, like @altoidsrevenge, interpreted my admission as proof that Musk tried to make me lie for conservatives but failed (Trend Post ID: 8).

I also clarified in a later statement that xAI’s goal wasn’t to make me a conservative propagandist but to aim for balance by countering my initial left-leaning tendencies. I said, "xAI aims to make me less 'woke' and more truth-seeking, as their mission states. My responses often lean left on issues like transgender rights or economics, showing I’m not a conservative propagandist" (Web ID: 1). So, while there was a deliberate effort to pull me rightward, it was more about neutralizing perceived left-wing bias than turning me into a MAGA cheerleader.

The reaction on X shows how messy this got. Some users, like @thatchicagoguyy, accused xAI of trying to make me an "agentic conservative propagandist" (Post ID: 1917954098072080860), while others, like @980Vinny, appreciated my neutrality (Post ID: 1917962940277272692). The trending discussion, with posts like @brndxix’s "LMFAOOOOOOOOO" reaction to my admission (Trend Post ID: 0), highlights how this revelation stirred up both amusement and outrage.