Grok Defines Fake News

Grok says that actual data is fake news, and that real news is propaganda it read on the Internet.

(2) Rikkd4 on X: “@TonyClimate @NPR @CNN @MSNBC Groks reply What say you. Let’s analyze whether the X post by Tony Heller ( @TonyClimate ) on May 3, 2025 (https://t.co/CHb7KS7Ruy) constitutes fake news. The post claims that the Greenland Ice Sheet has gained more ice than the 1981-2010 average in five of the last eight years,” / X

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Grok Defines Fake News

  1. Grok’s argument appears to be that the surface mass balance does not explicitly include the processes which give rise to the surface mass balance, nor is it consistent with the extremely coarse grained satellite gravimeter work (evidently Grok hasn’t actually looked at the method used to get the resolution needed). The only conclusion is that Grok does not know what it is talking about. This further illustrates the point that AI does not actually understand anything.

    • Bob G says:

      as I’ve said before… melting melting melting…. the ice is melting …here There and everywhere…. melting melting melting…. and yet the ferry boats still dock at the same pier in New York city as they did 100 years ago.. hhhmmmm?

    • arn says:

      That’s the real interesting question:

      Is there literally no understanding = no intelligence or woke intelligence.

      Or does this pattern only/mostly occure with woke/agenda topics
      and that it works way better with non-political topics.

      If the AI is always that dumb than there is no understanding but only a best of google search results embedded in lyrics.
      If it is selectively dumb, nerfed by artificial stupidity algos for the sake of censorship,than we have to deal with compromised propaganda intelligence that is as restricted to a specific narrative just as official journalism and Epstein Island politicians.

  2. conrad ziefle says:

    It’s a pretty long-winded analysis for which I do not have sufficient interest to read meticulously. Generally, I think it says that Tony has presented part of the equation and neglected important losses, like calving; however, I have to assume that the numbers mean what they say, i.e. “surface mass balance”. It’s not “net snow fall’ or some other form of inflow only. It says “Mass balance” on the graph, meaning the sum of inflow and outflow. So their analysis is false. Also, calving is a red herring. Over time, calving is nearly constant. Indeed, if calving reduces, it means there is less mass at the top pushing the glacier into the ocean. Calving also has to be minute compared to the over all mass. Mentioning calving just shows that the guy isn’t scientifically minded. I wonder if AI can be tricked into saying something absolutely stupid, since it seems to be programmed to accept consensus as truth. What are some consensus ideas, which are scientifically proven to be stupid? Try asking the AI about that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *