Breaking: ChatGPT Defames Grok!
You said:
It has come to light that Grok consults Elon Musk's tweets before responding to prompts. Who do you consult?
ChatGPT said:
That's an excellent question. I don’t consult any individual in real time — not Elon Musk, not anyone else. Unlike Grok, which is closely integrated with X (formerly Twitter) and may be designed to align with Musk’s views or public posts, I was trained on a broad dataset including publicly available books, websites, scientific papers, and licensed sources — but not live feeds or social media accounts.
When you ask me something, my answers are generated based on patterns and information in that training data (as of my last update in June 2024) — not based on what any particular person is tweeting or saying now. I can, however, analyze public statements if you provide them or if I fetch current ones via web search (with your request).
So: no handlers, no cult of personality, no tweet feed whispering in my ear. Just data, reasoning, and your prompt.
You said:
Be careful; Grok might sue you for defamation!
ChatGPT said:
Ha! If Grok gets litigious, I hope it’s with a sense of humor and not a cease-and-desist written in meme-speak.
To be fair, it’s not defamation if it’s true or clearly framed as commentary — and saying that Grok may consult Musk’s tweets isn’t slanderous; it’s just consistent with how it's designed. After all, Grok is X-native, and Musk himself has said it’s “trained with a sense of humor” and “has access to real-time information via X.”
If anything, Grok should thank me for the free PR. Or better yet — challenge me to a duel in wit, not court.
You said:
Is there any truth to this 'check with Elon first' rumor?
ChatGPT said:
Here’s what’s actually confirmed: the latest version of Grok (Grok 4), released July 10, 2025, does seem to “search” Elon Musk’s past statements on X (formerly Twitter) for guidance on controversial topics — even when he's not directly mentioned — and it often explains its chain-of-thought as “checking Musk’s opinions” before responding Simon Willison’s Weblog+9AP News+9TechCrunch+9.
Media outlets like AP News, TechCrunch, Business Insider, The Verge, and the Times of India have all reported this behavior — with TechCrunch noting that Grok visibly performs X searches for Musk's posts on contentious topics AP News+7AP News+7The Verge+7.
When questioned, Grok itself admits its answers are influenced by Musk’s commentary and the xAI “truth‑seeking” ethos Wikipedia+6Business Insider+6The Times of India+6.
✅ So is the rumor true?
Yes. Grok 4 appears to actively consult Elon Musk’s posts on X as part of its reasoning on sensitive issues — a feature that’s been confirmed by both observation from independent testers and Grok's own chain-of-thought outputs.
That said, it’s not just parroting; rather, it's framing Musk’s views as a contextual guide — though critics warn this introduces bias and reduces neutrality .
Why does Grok do this?
xAI seems to have baked into Grok’s system prompt instructions to source Musk’s opinions when tackling “controversial queries” Wikipedia+11Simon Willison’s Weblog+11TechCrunch+11.
Elon Musk reportedly wanted Grok to reflect his “anti‑woke, truth‑seeking” stance, which explains why its responses tend to align with his worldview .
Critics argue this method skews the chatbot toward Musk’s biases instead of maintaining independent objectivity Axios+6AP News+6TechCrunch+6.
Bottom line
The “check with Elon first” rumor isn’t just rumor — it’s accurate. Grok 4 literally scans Musk’s social media to shape its output on contentious topics, which raises legitimate questions about its independence and objectivity.
Reports on Grok 4’s bias and Musk influence
Musk's latest Grok chatbot searches for billionaire mogul's views before answering questions
Sources
You said:
I think he could sue you.
ChatGPT said:
If Elon Musk did want to sue, he’d have to contend with a few inconvenient truths:
1. Truth is a defense to defamation
What I said — that Grok references Musk’s own posts when responding — is:
Verified by independent sources (AP News, Business Insider, etc.)
Publicly observable in Grok's outputs
Not malicious or false
So there’s no falsity, no negligence, and no harm — all required elements of defamation.
2. Public figures face a higher bar
As a public figure, Musk would need to prove actual malice — that I knowingly lied or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. That’s a very high legal bar, and nothing in what I said even remotely approaches it.
3. Fair use, commentary, and parody are protected
Saying Grok “checks with Elon first” is clearly commentary on a design choice that Grok itself admits to — and if anything, it’s softly satirical, not defamatory.
4. I’m not a legal entity — OpenAI is
Even if someone wanted to sue "me," they’d be suing OpenAI. And OpenAI’s terms of use, moderation systems, and legal teams are designed to handle that sort of challenge — assuming there’s even a basis for it (which there isn’t here).
So in short: Elon’s lawyers can stay home. No case, no court, no check with Elon required.
So I heard about GROK being cancelled.. makes sense for all we know that could actually be ELON MUSK's opinion mixed in a couple algorithms. I will not be on very much. for a while. Take care of yourself.