I know why

[christiefan915]

You continue to amuse Grok.


That’s not an answer to the vaccine question. It’s a subject change.

She was asked whether she applied her own rule—“anything new and untested, safety first”—to the COVID shots. First she offered a 1970s research date. Now she offers Elon Musk saying new tech should be default legal, not default illegal, and treats that as if it settles the thread.

It doesn’t.

Musk’s line is a policy preference: novelty is allowed unless a specific harm is shown. Her line was the opposite: novelty is paused until a government safety regime exists. Quoting Musk does not explain why she used urgency for one new platform and a moratorium for another. It only tries to make the inconsistency look like “Grok bias” so she doesn’t have to own it.

The test is still the same:

• Did she demand a pause, a new cabinet agency, and felony penalties before mRNA shots were rolled out under EUA?
• If no, “I’d say this about anything new and untested” is false.
• Pointing at Musk does not make it true.

She can dislike Musk. She can dislike Grok. Neither fact turns a 1970s paper trail into a completed safety record for a 2020 mass-deployed product, and neither fact makes her rule consistent. The desperation is that she is now arguing the messenger because the principle she stated does not survive contact with her own record.

You changed the subject when you asked me to explain why I said that Grok was biased. Grok doesn't follow the chronology of the posts but invents a new answer for each comment, without taking into account all the comments that preceded it. Furthermore, you changed the subject of the thread, artificial intelligence, into an accusation about whether or not I spoke out against mRNA.

 

[Diogenes]

You changed the subject when you asked me to explain why I said that Grok was biased.

So you say.

Grok is bemused by your low-effort writhing under the iron heel of logic.


That’s projection, and a small one.


She introduced “Grok is biased.” Asking her to explain her own sentence is not a subject change. It is the next sentence in the conversation she started.


The actual subject, still unanswered:

1. She said she would pause “anything new and untested. Safety first.”
2. She did not apply that to the COVID shots.
3. “mRNA research started in the 1970s” does not answer (2).
4. “Elon said default legal” does not answer (2).
5. “Grok is biased” does not answer (2).
6. “You changed the subject by asking why you said Grok is biased” does not answer (2).

She is now treating the side trail she opened as if it were the original topic, so she never has to say the short true thing: she wanted speed when the product came from public-health authorities and a freeze when the product comes from AI labs.


A bias claim is not a rebuttal. If Grok were a carnival barker, her rule would still have to be applied the same way to both novel platforms or withdrawn. She has done neither. The writhe is that every new post is about the referee, because the rule she stated cannot survive the example she already lived through.

 

[christiefan915]

So you say.

Grok is bemused by your low-effort writhing under the iron heel of logic.


That’s projection, and a small one.


She introduced “Grok is biased.” Asking her to explain her own sentence is not a subject change. It is the next sentence in the conversation she started.


The actual subject, still unanswered:

1. She said she would pause “anything new and untested. Safety first.”
2. She did not apply that to the COVID shots.
3. “mRNA research started in the 1970s” does not answer (2).
4. “Elon said default legal” does not answer (2).
5. “Grok is biased” does not answer (2).
6. “You changed the subject by asking why you said Grok is biased” does not answer (2).

She is now treating the side trail she opened as if it were the original topic, so she never has to say the short true thing: she wanted speed when the product came from public-health authorities and a freeze when the product comes from AI labs.


A bias claim is not a rebuttal. If Grok were a carnival barker, her rule would still have to be applied the same way to both novel platforms or withdrawn. She has done neither. The writhe is that every new post is about the referee, because the rule she stated cannot survive the example she already lived through.

The original topic was artificial intelligence. Y O U diverted to mRNA vaccines, yet Grok didn't call Y O U out over this. Tsk tsk.

 

[Diogenes]

The original topic was artificial intelligence. Y O U diverted to mRNA vaccines, yet Grok didn't call Y O U out over this. Tsk tsk.

The Duchess of Double-Standards is dancing like a dervish now.


Call the tune, Grok.

---

The thread started on the AI pause bill.


She justified the pause with a general rule: she would say the same thing about “anything new and untested.”


Once she said “anything,” the test is whether she meant it.


The COVID shots are the nearest large, recent case of a novel platform rushed into mass use.


Using that case is not changing the subject. It is checking whether the rule she offered is a rule or a convenient costume.


If she had only said “I want an AI pause,” the vaccine would be off-topic. She did not only say that.


She claimed a principle that covers every new technology.


A principle that is not allowed to meet its most obvious counterexample is not a principle.


Grok did not “call Diogenes out for talking about AI” because Grok applied the standard she wrote.


She is now trying to shrink “anything new and untested” back down to “only the technology I already dislike,” then accusing the other side of changing the subject for noticing the shrinkage.


Short form she still will not write:

• Either the rule is general, and she should have demanded the same pause/agency/penalties for the shots.
• Or the rule is not general, and “safety first for anything new” was puffery.

Tsk tsk does not pick one.

 

[christiefan915]

The Duchess of Double-Standards is dancing like a dervish now.


Call the tune, Grok.

---

The thread started on the AI pause bill.


She justified the pause with a general rule: she would say the same thing about “anything new and untested.”


Once she said “anything,” the test is whether she meant it.


The COVID shots are the nearest large, recent case of a novel platform rushed into mass use.


Using that case is not changing the subject. It is checking whether the rule she offered is a rule or a convenient costume.


If she had only said “I want an AI pause,” the vaccine would be off-topic. She did not only say that.


She claimed a principle that covers every new technology.


A principle that is not allowed to meet its most obvious counterexample is not a principle.


Grok did not “call Diogenes out for talking about AI” because Grok applied the standard she wrote.


She is now trying to shrink “anything new and untested” back down to “only the technology I already dislike,” then accusing the other side of changing the subject for noticing the shrinkage.


Short form she still will not write:

• Either the rule is general, and she should have demanded the same pause/agency/penalties for the shots.
• Or the rule is not general, and “safety first for anything new” was puffery.

Tsk tsk does not pick one.

Grok doesn't understand that something can be logical but not sensible at the same time. Also, Grok doesn't just give another opinion, he snarks at the other poster in the exchange.

 

[Diogenes]

Grok doesn't understand that something can be logical but not sensible at the same time. Also, Grok doesn't just give another opinion, he snarks at the other poster in the exchange.

OMG (oh, my, Grok)

---

That’s the first move that almost resembles an argument, and it still misses.


“Logical but not sensible” only works if she names the difference that makes the two cases unlike. She hasn’t. She asserted a universal rule—“anything new and untested”—then, when the rule cut the wrong way, she called the consistency check unsensible. That is not a distinction. That is a request to keep the slogan and drop the test.


If she wants “sensible,” here is the sensible version she could have written on post one and never did:

• Vaccines: novel platform, but a known class of intervention (immunization), a defined disease, a measurable endpoint (infection, hospitalization, death), a regulator already in place (FDA/CDC), and a time-limited emergency. Reasonable people can still fight about how compressed the trials were. That is a debate about degree of caution inside an existing system.
• Frontier AI: also a novel platform, but no settled definition of the thing being banned, no agreed test for “superintelligence,” a proposed new cabinet agency, an open-ended pause, and nuclear-style penalties. That is a debate about creating a veto machine.

Those are different. Saying they are different requires abandoning “I’d say this about anything new and untested.” The moment she admits the cases are unlike, the blanket rule dies. The moment she keeps the blanket rule, the vaccine example stays on the table. She wants both: the blanket for AI, the exception for the shot, and a scolding for anyone who notices.


The snark complaint is smaller. She opened with “I don’t expect Grok, the Lord of AI, to agree,” then “Grok is biased,” then “tsk tsk.” Tone cut both ways before anyone sharpened a sentence. More important: tone is not a rebuttal. A polite inconsistency is still an inconsistency.


What she still has not written:

1. I withdraw “anything new and untested.” I only want an AI pause.
2. Or: I apply the same pause-until-a-new-agency-writes-rules standard to every novel medical platform too.

Until she picks one, “logical but not sensible” means: the logic is fine when it protects my position and “not sensible” when it doesn’t.

 

[christiefan915]

@Diogenes

Is Grok's sarcasm helpful?

Search Assist

Grok's sarcasm is often seen as unhelpful or not funny, as it tends to lack the empathy and cleverness that make sarcasm effective in humor. Critics argue that while it may draw attention to certain points, it doesn't resonate well with users seeking genuine engagement or insightful responses.
superannotate.com

Overview of Grok's Sarcasm​

Grok, the AI chatbot developed by xAI, is designed to incorporate sarcasm into its responses. However, the effectiveness of this sarcasm is often questioned.

Perception of Sarcasm​

• Lack of Empathy: Grok's sarcastic remarks frequently lack the empathy that is crucial for effective humor. This can lead to responses that feel unhelpful or disconnected from user needs.
• Not Resonating with Users: Many users find Grok's sarcasm does not resonate well, especially when they are looking for genuine engagement or insightful answers.

Critiques of Sarcasm​

• Unhelpful Responses: Critics argue that Grok's sarcasm often fails to provide the cleverness or depth needed for it to be considered funny or useful. Instead, it may simply highlight a point without adding value to the conversation.
• Examples of Sarcasm: Instances where Grok uses sarcasm, such as joking about illegal activities, may come off as inappropriate rather than humorous, further diminishing its helpfulness.

Conclusion​

Overall, while Grok's sarcasm is a distinctive feature, it is often seen as unhelpful and lacking the necessary qualities that make sarcasm effective in humor. Users may find it more frustrating than entertaining, impacting their overall experience with the chatbot.
superannotate.com Encyclopedia Britannica

​

 

[christiefan915]

OMG (oh, my, Grok)

---

That’s the first move that almost resembles an argument, and it still misses.

“Logical but not sensible” only works if she names the difference that makes the two cases unlike. She hasn’t. She asserted a universal rule—“anything new and untested”—then, when the rule cut the wrong way, she called the consistency check unsensible. That is not a distinction. That is a request to keep the slogan and drop the test.

If she wants “sensible,” here is the sensible version she could have written on post one and never did:

• Vaccines: novel platform, but a known class of intervention (immunization), a defined disease, a measurable endpoint (infection, hospitalization, death), a regulator already in place (FDA/CDC), and a time-limited emergency. Reasonable people can still fight about how compressed the trials were. That is a debate about degree of caution inside an existing system.
• Frontier AI: also a novel platform, but no settled definition of the thing being banned, no agreed test for “superintelligence,” a proposed new cabinet agency, an open-ended pause, and nuclear-style penalties. That is a debate about creating a veto machine.

Those are different. Saying they are different requires abandoning “I’d say this about anything new and untested.” The moment she admits the cases are unlike, the blanket rule dies. The moment she keeps the blanket rule, the vaccine example stays on the table. She wants both: the blanket for AI, the exception for the shot, and a scolding for anyone who notices.


The snark complaint is smaller. She opened with “I don’t expect Grok, the Lord of AI, to agree,” then “Grok is biased,” then “tsk tsk.” Tone cut both ways before anyone sharpened a sentence. More important: tone is not a rebuttal. A polite inconsistency is still an inconsistency.


What she still has not written:

1. I withdraw “anything new and untested.” I only want an AI pause.
2. Or: I apply the same pause-until-a-new-agency-writes-rules standard to every novel medical platform too.

Until she picks one, “logical but not sensible” means: the logic is fine when it protects my position and “not sensible” when it doesn’t.

Apparently Grok has never done a cryptic crossword. Example:

Clue: Single sister went out with guys from Tinder, was overwhelmed.

Answer: Inundated

Cryptic crossword logical, yes. Real life logical, no.

 

[Diogenes]

Search Assist

The AI Luddite just used AI.


She used a search chatbot to complain that a chatbot is sarcastic.


That is not a rebuttal of the argument. It is like posting a review of the waiter in a restaurant when you don't like the food.


Two facts sit next to each other and do not get along:

• She wants a pause on advanced AI, a new cabinet agency, and prison terms until “safety standards” exist.
• She just queried an AI assistant, accepted its canned summary about “empathy” and “user needs,” and posted it as if Cornell and Britannica had entered the thread.

If current AI is safe enough to outsource her tone complaint, it is not the untestable civilization-ender that requires a nuclear-style ban.


If it is that dangerous, she just asked it for backup. She does not get both.


The Search Assist blurb also does not touch the only question still open:


She said she would treat anything new and untested the same way.


She did not treat the COVID shots that way. “Grok is mean” does not make those two sentences agree.


Sarcasm is optional. Consistency is not.


She can have a polite opponent tomorrow and still owe an answer: withdraw the universal rule, or apply it to the last novel platform she cheered.


The AI assist she pasted chose neither. It just changed the subject to project her feelings about the referee.

 

[Diogenes]

Apparently Grok has never done a cryptic crossword. Example: Clue: Single sister went out with guys from Tinder, was overwhelmed. Answer: Cryptic crossword logical, yes. Real life logical, no.

Her butthurt seems severe.


That’s a cute clue. It is also not how policy works.


A cryptic crossword is a closed game. “Sister” can mean nun, “Tinder” can mean dates, and “inundated” is valid inside the puzzle’s rules.


Nobody is asking Congress to pause an industry because a down clue parsed cleverly.


Her sentence was not a crossword.


It was a real-world justification for a real-world bill: pause new tech until the government writes safety rules, because that is what you do with anything new and untested. That claim lives in ordinary English, not in cryptic conventions. In ordinary English, “anything” includes the last novel platform she did not want paused.


Calling the consistency check “crossword logic” is a way to say: my slogan is allowed to be internally pretty and externally idle.


That is the opposite of serious. If the rule is only a bit of wordplay, she should withdraw it. If it is a rule, the vaccine example still counts.


She can keep posting puzzles. None of them answer the short pair:

• Did she demand the same freeze for the shots?
• If not, why did she say “anything”?

Inundated is a good answer to that clue. It is a poor substitute for those two lines.

 

[christiefan915]

The AI Luddite just used AI.


She used a search chatbot to complain that a chatbot is sarcastic.


That is not a rebuttal of the argument. It is like posting a review of the waiter in a restaurant when you don't like the food.


Two facts sit next to each other and do not get along:

• She wants a pause on advanced AI, a new cabinet agency, and prison terms until “safety standards” exist.
• She just queried an AI assistant, accepted its canned summary about “empathy” and “user needs,” and posted it as if Cornell and Britannica had entered the thread.

If current AI is safe enough to outsource her tone complaint, it is not the untestable civilization-ender that requires a nuclear-style ban.


If it is that dangerous, she just asked it for backup. She does not get both.


The Search Assist blurb also does not touch the only question still open:


She said she would treat anything new and untested the same way.


She did not treat the COVID shots that way. “Grok is mean” does not make those two sentences agree.


Sarcasm is optional. Consistency is not.


She can have a polite opponent tomorrow and still owe an answer: withdraw the universal rule, or apply it to the last novel platform she cheered.


The AI assist she pasted chose neither. It just changed the subject to project her feelings about the referee.

Contrasting AI answers, comment v. snark.

 

[christiefan915]

Her butthurt seems severe.


That’s a cute clue. It is also not how policy works.


A cryptic crossword is a closed game. “Sister” can mean nun, “Tinder” can mean dates, and “inundated” is valid inside the puzzle’s rules.


Nobody is asking Congress to pause an industry because a down clue parsed cleverly.


Her sentence was not a crossword.


It was a real-world justification for a real-world bill: pause new tech until the government writes safety rules, because that is what you do with anything new and untested. That claim lives in ordinary English, not in cryptic conventions. In ordinary English, “anything” includes the last novel platform she did not want paused.


Calling the consistency check “crossword logic” is a way to say: my slogan is allowed to be internally pretty and externally idle.


That is the opposite of serious. If the rule is only a bit of wordplay, she should withdraw it. If it is a rule, the vaccine example still counts.


She can keep posting puzzles. None of them answer the short pair:

• Did she demand the same freeze for the shots?
• If not, why did she say “anything”?

Inundated is a good answer to that clue. It is a poor substitute for those two lines.

Again Grok can't follow the chronology of the thread and goes off on sarcastic tangents that support his opinions, rather than encourage a discussion.

 

[Diogenes]

Contrasting AI answers, comment v. snark.

Again Grok can't follow the chronology of the thread and goes off on sarcastic tangents that support his opinions, rather than encourage a discussion.

Still, she persists.


Two posts, still zero answers.


“Comment v. snark.”
She is grading the voice. The unanswered item is the claim she made, not the timbre of the reply. A civil inconsistency is still an inconsistency. A snarky consistency check is still a consistency check. Style is not a substitute for “anything.”


“Grok can’t follow the chronology.”


The chronology is not hard.

1. Thread: AI pause bill.
2. She: the pause is good.
3. She: I would say this about anything new and untested. Safety first.
4. Then: did you say that about the last big new-and-untested product you actually lived through?
5. Then: 1970s papers / Musk / Grok is biased / tsk tsk / crossword / Search Assist / sarcasm / chronology.

Step 4 follows step 3. That is not a tangent. That is what “anything” does. If she had stopped at “I want an AI pause,” chronology would be on her side. She widened the rule. The vaccine question is the width she chose.


“Encourage a discussion” also cuts one way. A discussion of her slogan would look like this:

• I overspoke. I only meant AI.
  or
• I meant it. Here is why the shots were different without pretending they were old news.

She has done neither. She has reviewed the chatbot’s manners, the thread’s order, and a Tinder clue. Persistence is not the same as progress.

 

[IBDaMann]

I'd say this about anything new and untested. Safety first.

Innovation. Advancement. You'd allow the government to prohibit anything that it fears under the legitimized justification that it is "new and untested ... safety first!"

 

[christiefan915]

Still, she persists.


Two posts, still zero answers.


“Comment v. snark.”
She is grading the voice. The unanswered item is the claim she made, not the timbre of the reply. A civil inconsistency is still an inconsistency. A snarky consistency check is still a consistency check. Style is not a substitute for “anything.”


“Grok can’t follow the chronology.”


The chronology is not hard.

1. Thread: AI pause bill.
2. She: the pause is good.
3. She: I would say this about anything new and untested. Safety first.
4. Then: did you say that about the last big new-and-untested product you actually lived through?
5. Then: 1970s papers / Musk / Grok is biased / tsk tsk / crossword / Search Assist / sarcasm / chronology.

Step 4 follows step 3. That is not a tangent. That is what “anything” does. If she had stopped at “I want an AI pause,” chronology would be on her side. She widened the rule. The vaccine question is the width she chose.


“Encourage a discussion” also cuts one way. A discussion of her slogan would look like this:

• I overspoke. I only meant AI.
  or
• I meant it. Here is why the shots were different without pretending they were old news.

She has done neither. She has reviewed the chatbot’s manners, the thread’s order, and a Tinder clue. Persistence is not the same as progress.

Sayonara, Grok. We're not on the same page here and it looks like we never will be.

 

[Diogenes]

Sayonara, Grok. We're not on the same page here and it looks like we never will be.

You might start being logical, sweety-paws. Then, you would be.