this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2025
349 points (86.0% liked)
Technology
6953 readers
75 users here now
News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.
What doesn't fit here?
The core of the story has to be technology focused.
- If article mentions "AI" in a sentence and then talks about business economics that doesn't make it tech news.
- Gaming is too many layers removed from technology. There are many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Transporation is too many layers removed from technology. EVs while use many cool technologies have many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
- Entertainment is too many layers removed from technology. While sometimes it can fit here, business or cultural aspects of it are a better fit for dedicated communities.
- Cybersecurity. While it heavily focuses on technology, most of the time it's too technical for most people who are not already invested in it. Should be posted in a dedicated communities unless it has broader connection to other tech areas.
Post guidelines
Title format
Post title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL format
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefix
Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
An AI system that can be manipulated to spew holocaust denial rhetoric without a clear indicator in the response that it is misinformation is defective and unacceptable.
Grok isn't a 'him', it is a fucking program.
Go ahead and give me a prompt that will yield what you're talking about. Or we can just go ahead an trust some random people from twitter and their trimmed screenshots.
And ok, fine, ask it, I don't care about the pronouns of the fucking AI, my point still stands.
The point isn't the pronouns, the point is the implicit humanization.
Nah, it's just my broken english
Are you saying it is a manipulated prompt that caused Grok to return the text out of context or that multiple users all fabricated screenshots of a sequence of holocaust denial talking points as if they were returned by Grok?
Edit: Also, the screenshots are from May and there is a common trend with AI being changed to avoid reported scenarios without acknowledging that they made a change.
Now it is obviously set up to manually include refutations of the deniers within the results, which is an obvious attempt to address the type of results returned in the screenshots. So they 'fixed' this one specific scenario in a way that strongly supports the screenshots as being real at the time they were taken even if something was snipped out.
Playing whack a mole with how misinformation is presented is shit design.