A bit like AI, Elon Musk seems custom-built to undermine everything good and true in the world
There are things we can say for certain, which is that Grok is antisemitic – an impression, in case we had somehow missed it, the bot was careful to underline with its subsequent assertions that leftist accounts spewing 'anti-white hate … often have Ashkenazi Jewish surnames', and that Hitler would have been the best historical figure to deal with this hate: 'he'd spot the pattern and handle it decisively every damn time,' it tweeted (all the posts have since been deleted).
Other things, we can't be so sure of – was Red_reflections a real account from an authentic leftist, or ersatz leftism from a neo-fascist troll to build data points for 'the left is full of hate' thesis, or a figment created by Grok itself? At least one person named Cindy Steinberg does exist, but whether any of them said 'I'm glad there are a few less colonizers in the world now and I don't care whose bootlicking fragile ego that offends' (the putative text of the original tweet about the Texas floods) is contestable.
It doesn't sound like a very likely opinion, from anyone. Yet the language is an almost parodic version of the vocabulary of the 'wokerati'. It sounds, in other words, completely confected, yet all our shortcuts to calling bullshit have been systematically stripped away. If you say 'this sounds made up' before you can prove it's made up, then your standards are no higher than the people making it up. So the offence just stands there, misattributed, while Nazis make hay with it and everyone else just sighs and hopes for it to die down.
This routine is so familiar that more searching and playful minds look for a deeper truth: has Grok gone full Hitler-stan by accident or design? Is Grok a large language model, or LLM, at all – or is it Elon Musk himself, the wizard behind the curtain, spewing out a word side-salad to his famous Nazi salute?
Musk's moves are so clunky, so obvious, inelegant, disconcerting and uncanny, that he's started himself to resemble an AI-generated image, the human version of a hand with six fingers, not a flesh-and-blood billionaire at all, just a provocative hologram – a trollogram, if you prefer.
AI's ability to fog and pollute the biosphere of agreed reality and upend any possibility of humane and rational discourse is undisputed. Though we puzzle over whether its synthetic information is accidental or deliberate and then who, if anyone, is pulling the strings – and to what tune. But we balk at admitting what we already know. It doesn't matter which bits of misinformation are accidental hallucination; distorting reality serves totalitarianism, not democracy. When falsity is introduced on purpose to these systems its agenda is the same..
Everything Musk has done since he bought Twitter (and we'll only slow ourselves down if we try to trace its origins further back) has destroyed trust – in social media, in democracy, in institutions, in the possibilities of discourse, in observable reality itself.
Hannah Arendt made a careful and unarguable account, decades ago, of how important it was to totalitarianism that truth be turned on its head, so that civic life was disoriented and its agents alienated. But even if we imagine her arguments to be inadequate to our modern technological conditions, we have understood 21st-century post-truth pretty well for at least a decade. The techniques of falsity were described in 2015 by Ben Nimmo's article 'Anatomy of an info-war – how Russia's propaganda machine works': 'dismiss, distort, distract, dismay'. The first three are covered by the 'dead cat' approach with which we're so familiar, but dismay is probably the most interesting: the lifeblood-sucking impact of narratives that are not only untrue but the opposite of the truth, revel in their irrationality, dare you to hold their comments to standards of fairness.
The sheer ridiculousness of an LLM voicing antisemitism in its crusade against 'fascism', bellowing its own outrage against a message it probably concocted in the first place; the breathtaking hypocrisy of the oligarch Musk, Hitler-saluting while presenting himself as a one-man bastion against a fascist descent – none of this actually disturbs your sense of what is real. What it does, instead, is to destroy your trust in what is permissible. If the world order permits this, then order no longer exists – which is pretty dismaying, but not novelly so.
The paradox of AI, in its Nazi and non-Nazi forms, is that the concept creates a sense of impotence – your mind can never be as powerful as this omnipotent thing – while the reality creates dependence: 'Who shall I ask about what Grok actually said? I know, ChatGPT.' If the situation is dismaying in its particulars, the overall effect is an addictive pessimism – this latest Nazi rant would be a great time to recognise rock bottom.
Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
16 minutes ago
- Reuters
Breakingviews - EU's lopsided Trump trade deal will be short-lived
BERLIN, July 27 (Reuters Breakingviews) - European Union trade negotiators may promptly celebrate the success they have achieved by clinching a deal with Donald Trump. If so, the question should be: If that passes for success, what would failure have looked like? Financial markets and European captains of industry will doubtless heave a sigh of relief at the agreement, announced on Sunday by the U.S. president and his European Commission counterpart Ursula von der Leyen. The continent's main exporters can base their investment and commercial plans on the 15% levy on U.S. imports accepted by the Commission. That's much lower than the 30% charge on European goods Trump had promised to impose on August 1 in the absence of a deal, which in turn was less than a previous 50% threat. Importantly, the rate applies to European cars, which join Japanese-made vehicles in escaping the 25% charge on U.S. auto imports, and to the continent's pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, which may have otherwise faced punitive sector-specific treatment. The deal also enables the Europeans to shelve counter-tariffs and other measures they had lined up. Some degree of uncertainty has at least been dispelled. Nevertheless, the tariff level still amounts to capitulation by Brussels. It must be compared not to Trump's threats, but to the 1.47% average, opens new tab rate previously applied to European goods crossing the Atlantic. Only two months ago, several EU governments were warning, opens new tab that a 10% across-the-board charge, similar to what the UK had obtained, would be a red line that should trigger some form of response. In addition to the added trade friction, the EU has also promised to import more energy – spending $250 billion a year on American oil and gas – and could invest some $600 billion stateside. That, at least, is Trump's interpretation of the deal. It's unclear whether these figures represent incremental amounts, or what time frame the president had in mind. Fuzzy as they are, these EU pledges at least do not look very binding. Yet the vague agreement also suggests Sunday's announcement is unlikely to be the last word. Even at the lower rate, the tariffs will hurt the U.S. economy. They will either bring much-needed revenue — a source of pride for Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent – or shrink imports. But they cannot achieve both at the same time. And if EU businesses do crank up investment in the U.S., the resulting capital flows will be to the detriment of the trade balance. All this means the EU's trade surplus, opens new tab with the U.S., which reached 198 billion euros in goods last year, partly offset by a 109 billion euro deficit on services, may not shrink much in the coming years. When the impulsive and unpredictable president can no longer deny the destructive impact of his tariffs, he will be tempted to yet again blame U.S. trade partners. It's puzzling that the EU, the world's largest, opens new tab trading power, has failed to grasp that the best way to fight bullying is to stand your ground. Follow Pierre Briancon on Bluesky, opens new tab and LinkedIn, opens new tab.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
CNN host laughs at Republican senator as he fact-checks him on Epstein ‘sweetheart' deal
CNN's Jake Tapper repeatedly fact-checked a Republican senator on air Sunday as the lawmaker insisted that Democrats and Barack Obama's administration were at fault for a 'sweetheart' deal that allowed Jeffrey Epstein to escape his 2008 conviction on child sex charges virtually unscathed. Sen. Markwayne Mullin appeared on CNN's State of the Union and repeatedly claimed that a plea agreement to keep Epstein from being charged federally for child sex crimes was signed in 2009, under the Obama administration. But Epstein's plea agreement was drafted in 2007 and signed in 2008, when he pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for sex, before Obama was even president. 'It was 2008,' Tapper corrected him, chuckling. Tapper noted that the U.S. attorney who oversaw the non-prosecution agreement was Alex Acosta, who went on become Donald Trump's secretary of labor during his first administration. 'It all took place in 2008,' Tapper said. Mullin then shot back, asking 'who was in office at the time?' — seemingly making the error of assuming that Obama was the president. Obama won the presidential election that year but was inaugurated in January 2009. 'In 2008, George W. Bush was the president,' Tapper said, as he was cut off by Mullin repeating his question. 'George W. Bush.' Mullin went on to insist that because the case was 'sealed in 2009' that Democrats were somehow involved. A clearly exasperated Tapper responded that 'the point is, the 'sweetheart deal', which was completed in 2008, was under the Bush administration.' The plea agreement inked between Acosta and Epstein's attorney, Alan Dershowitz, was staggering in its leniency. Epstein was allowed to leave the prison facility for hours at a time for 'work release' to the headquarters of a nebulous enterprise called the 'Florida Science Foundation' he founded shortly before beginning his sentence and shut down when it concluded. Inside the prison, Epstein was allowed to maintain his own office, just as he'd done at Harvard University for years, while watching television and was watched by guards who wore suits and were partially on his payroll. Mullin and other Republicans closely aligned with the president are treading a careful line on the issue of the Epstein investigation. The Trump administration ignited a firestorm early in July when the Department of Justice and FBI announced that the agencies would not release any more documents related to the Epstein investigation despite having promised to do so. The agencies cited a refusal to release identifying information about victims and graphic sexual imagery involving children. Most glaringly, the agencies also declared in that early July announcement that a so-called 'client list' of Epstein's alleged co-conspirators had not been found. Having latched on to the issue long before Trump was elected to a second term, his MAGA base descended into chaos. Many of the president's 2024 supporters called the reversal a betrayal by the administration, while some questioned whether Trump himself was involved in a cover-up to protect himself or other powerful men named as Epstein's accomplices in the files. Some Democrats latched on to the issue at the same time, joining calls for transparency. Then, a pair of articles in The Wall Street Journal purported to outline Trump's own connections to the investigation. The newspaper reported the contents of a message allegedly penned by Trump to Epstein as part of a 50th birthday celebration in 2003, including allusions to a 'secret.' Trump firmly denied authoring the note, and sued the newspaper and its reporters in response. A second article from the WSJ days later reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi informed Trump in May that he was mentioned in the Epstein investigation multiple times, thought it was not clear in what context The White House called that story 'fake' and has repeatedly insinuated that Democrats including Joe Biden tampered with the Epstein files in response. Being mentioned in the files does not mean wrongdoing, and hundreds of names are reportedly included. Republicans on Capitol Hill are caught in the middle. Some are joining on to a bipartisan effort led by Thomas Massie — a Republican who clashed with the president over the GOP budget reconciliation package earlier this year — and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna to force the Justice Department to release the entirety of its document trove, with redactions for child sexual assault material and the names or identifying information of victims. Others more aligned with leadership, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. But Johnson and others have been careful not to label the Epstein story a distraction, to the White House's annoyance. Johnson called the August recess early this past week, sending lawmakers home for the month to avoid a vote legislation from Massie and Khanna.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Investigators quiz jailed Ghislaine Maxwell about Prince Andrew, claim reports
INVESTIGATORS quizzed jailed madam Ghislaine Maxwell about Prince Andrew, it is reported. She answered 'honestly and truthfully' during nine hours of questions. 3 3 US Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche asked her about more than 100 people linked to her paedophile ex-boyfriend Jeffrey Epstein. Brit socialite Maxwell, 63, is serving 20 years in Florida after being convicted of offences including sex trafficking. The meeting came after President Donald Trump faced questions over his own links to Epstein, who killed himself in jail awaiting trial in 2019. A source, quoted by The Mail on Sunday, said: 'Ghislaine has never told her story to anyone in government before. 'At times it was very emotional but she answered every question asked of her. 'She was asked about a list of people including Prince Andrew, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz and powerful Wall Street financiers. 'It's ironic that Elon Musk kicked this whole thing off when he fell out with Trump and then made that post on X about Trump allegedly preventing the release of the full Epstein documents as some sort of 'cover-up'. 'Well, Elon is in there, as is his brother. "It was a monumental moment for Ghislaine to finally be asked about these people and to tell the truth.' Jeffrey Epstein's brother insists he was 'most likely murdered' amid mystery around 'missing minute' of 'suicide' video 3
