See below: Insights from Elon Musk on what is currently dangerously wrong with AI and how to prevent the corruption of AI with the “Woke mind virus” that promotes destructive outcomes- i.e. his latest Joe Rogan interview.
I am no fanboy of Tucker Carlson, Wendell Krossa.
Carlson has recently said some things that seem a bit off the rail, too religiously dogmatic, too ‘conspiracy theory’ nutty (i.e. re “Twin Towers, Israel, etc.”). But to give him some props, he has done some interesting things over the recent past such as the Putin interview. And here he asks some useful questions of ChatGPT CEO Sam Altman, such as- What inputs are guiding the development of AI? And Who is making the inputs on basic principles? And what are the principles?
Altman replies that in developing his ChatGPT they are trying to get the “total collective of humanity” in terms of moral issues, all that diversity.
But, persists Carlson, who makes the moral decisions and based on what criteria? Who decides one thing is better than another? Who makes the specs to decide the framework that makes decisions on whether, for example, liberal democracy is better than Nazism? All critical questions that the public needs to know fully. Keep pressing, Tucker.
Tucker then goes off (my view) on his view of God, and the religious morality related to that, obviously inferring that something like his religious views, his theology, should be the basic guiding thing for AI, and he questions Altman on this issue. He asks Altman, “Do you believe in God?” Altman, knocked off kilter a bit, responds that ChatGPT will reflect some average moral view of all humanity that evolves over time. To “accurately reflect the preferences of humanity.”
Tucker then appears to affirm something like liberal democracy is basic to the principles that should be programmed into AI.
But he appears to be pushing also for his view of God, and religious morality based on such theology, as fundamental criteria for shaping AI.
I would suggest, in response to the comment that Carlson made reference to in passing, that the best that we have come up with to guide AI would be Classic Liberal principles, systems of common law, and representative institutions, what we term “liberal democracy”. This system or approach to organizing human societies has produced the best outcomes in protecting us from power-mongering elites (and Carlson’s related anxiety about superintelligent AI) who are ceaselessly trying to manipulate and control us commoners.
Elites, as all across human history, are driven by the delusional Plato fallacy that some people are more special in some way, to the point that people consider such special people to be “divine” or “divinely blessed”. And yes, admittedly, notable differences between varied individuals have always existed.
But then elites take such differences as validation for their right to dominate and control others through state institutions and state coercion, to establish and maintain the “elite/commoner divide” that has cursed our societies from the beginning. Such domination is at its worst when people attribute something divine to such elites (i.e. divinely appointed, “divine right of kings”, etc.), making elite domination an unchallengeable thing, something beyond questioning.
Added note to Carlson’s advocacy for his theology and morality to shape AI: Having taken a poke at Tucker, I felt impelled (that Canadian “niceness” thing) to make this balancing qualifier:
Having a quibble with someone over their theology, religious beliefs, and moral standards, does not deny the fact that they are generally good people, well-intentioned and making valuable contributions to general society. I always try to balance this out in my disagreement with religious friends, Evangelical Christian family and friends, assuring them that I admire and affirm them as good people.
However, I disagree with them on ideas/beliefs that Christians hold, because we are responsible for the outcomes of the ideas/beliefs that we hold and history has shown us that some ideas have horrific outcomes, notably bad religious ideas and most especially the ideas associated with the “apocalyptic millennialism” of Paul’s Christ myth. There is no excusing the horrific outcomes of those ideas in the well-documented evidence of destruction from the Marxist revolutions, Nazi horrors, and now in environmental alarmism and its Net Zero crusade based on the climate apocalypse narrative, all shaped by apocalyptic millennial themes that owe their prominence in Western civilization directly to Paul’s Christ.
Yes, there are good ideas also in the Christian religion, notably the themes associated with the message of historical Jesus. We recognize those distinct themes and argue that they should be presented free of the “Jesus Christ” merger that distorts and buries the Jesus element in that coupling (riffing again on the Jefferson/Tolstoy points/arguments). We have to understand the profound differences between the basic elements of the Jesus message and Paul’s Christ myth, what are the good elements and what are the bad. This is basic human responsibility, something that even Adam understood but was punished for daring to vent his curiosity (i.e. eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil).
But again, not to deny the goodness of people involved in such traditions, as long as they find ways to moderate the influence and outcomes of the bad features in their traditions.
It’s important to recognize basic human goodness wherever we find it, whether in religious or materialist/atheist folks, and to honor such goodness no matter where we find it. We never get to full agreement on anything but must work for ongoing compromise on all sorts of things in order to get along in our societies that welcome diversity. And disagreement too is healthy, the “iron sharpens iron” thing that democratic societies need and profit from, where different people with wildly differing opinions hold one other to open-ended debate, learning, potential change, and further development.
The concern in the mix is the tendency of committed religious people (as well as those committed to ideological belief systems) to try to edge their societies toward theocratic-type governance, where their particular religion dominates political/social systems. This is a subtle tendency when people believe sincerely that their beliefs, and the morality of their tradition, are superior to all others and best for guiding a society.
J. D. Vance sort of muddles this in his response to a student during his recent appearance at the University of Mississippi. The student had asked about Christian efforts to push Christian prayers at schools and, in his answer, Vance stated that values like freedom of religion came from Christianity, just as the project to end slavery came from British Christians. And he quotes a verse from Jesus to back his argument- i.e. “By their fruits you shall know them”, as he attributes the above good things to Christians and their tradition.
But that blurs entirely the profound contrast between Historical Jesus and the themes of Paul’s Christ myth. Paul’s Christ did not inspire people to advocate for freedom from slavery. Paul stated to the contrary, “Slaves must submit to their masters”. So also, “Women must submit to their husbands”. And Christians in general must submit to the powers that be, as in submission to their Roman oppressors (Romans 13).
The advocacy for relationships of domination/submission was derived very much from Paul’s archetypal “Lord Christ”, the ultimate archetype of domination/submission relating.
So no, it was the very different, very opposite message of Historical Jesus that inspired some Christians to fight for the end of slavery. And that Jesus message is not a “Christian” message but is a very non-religious message of universal, unconditional love that even atheists can hold. Jesus clearly promoted non-domination in his statements to followers that there must be “no lording over others but instead serving others”, something entirely contrary to the religious domination epitomized in popes, bishops, and other elites/religious authorities who rule the Christian empire.
The message of Historical Jesus, notably his “no lording but instead serving”, is entirely contrary to “Lord Jesus” ruling archetypically with “a totalitarian rod of iron” over subjugated unbelievers for eternity. Vance did not make clear the cognitive dissonance in the merger of Jesus with Christ and did not present the profound differences between Jesus and Christ on these issues. He attributed to the “Jesus Christ” merger what was more clearly solely from the message of Jesus. Jefferson and Tolstoy understood these things better. So don’t mix these two opposites that do not mix without distortion of the Jesus element, even burying it.
Yes, British Christians were initiators of the fight against slavery but what exactly motivated them? Jesus’ message on non-domination, love of enemy, and universal, unconditional treatment of all as in “sun and rain generously given to both good and bad people”, or Paul’s opposite Lord Jesus advocating relationships of domination/submission as in slaves submit to your masters?
It matters that we be clear on these things.
Again, props to religious friends and family. Continue your efforts to try to get me to “return to Jesus”, to “repent and get right with God”. I don’t mind at all. I still value our friendships immensely. Good people are good people wherever they reside/affiliate in all the traditions that make life diverse and colorful. (“Props”? Who knows exactly what that means. Sort of “praise”, I guess. I picked it up from UFC fighter Chris Weidman.)
“Sam Altman on God, Elon Musk and the Mysterious Death of His Former Employee”,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KmpT-BoVf4
(End of Carlson/Altman interview)
The basic principles of a humane society: Wendell Krossa
What do I mean when I refer to “Classic Liberalism”?
As people fret about creating “safe AI”, why not ensure that safety by programing AI with Classic Liberal principles/laws/institutions?
Basic principles, laws, institutions of “Classic Liberalism”, “liberal democracy”, or “Western liberalism”.
Daniel Hannan in his Introduction to “Inventing Freedom” provides the following lists and descriptions of the basic features of a truly liberal society or civilization:
“A belief in property rights, personal liberty, and representative government…
“Three irreducible elements. First, the rule of law…Those rules exist on a higher plane and are interpreted by independent magistrates…
“Second, personal liberty: freedom to say what you like, to assemble in any configuration you choose with your fellow citizens, to buy and sell without hindrance, to dispose as you wish with your assets, to work for whom you please, and conversely, to hire and fire as you will…
“Third, representative government. Laws should not be passed, nor taxes levied, except by elected legislators who are answerable to the rest of us… the rule of law, democratic government, and individual liberty…
“The idea that the individual should be as free as possible from state coercion… elevate the individual over the state…
“Elected parliaments, habeas corpus (see below), free contract, equality before the law, open markets, an unrestricted press, the right to proselytize for any religion, jury trials…
“The idea that the government ought to be subject to the law, not the other way around. The rule of law created security of property and contract…
“Individualism, the rule of law, honoring contracts and covenants, and the elevation of freedom to the first rank of political and cultural values…
And this full summary:
“Lawmakers should be directly accountable through the ballot box; the executive should be controlled by the legislature; taxes should not be levied nor laws passed without popular consent; the individual should be free from arbitrary punishment or confiscation; decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people they affected; power should be dispersed; no one, not even the head of state, should be above the law; property rights should be secure; disputes should be arbitrated by independent magistrates; freedom of speech, religion, and assembly should be guaranteed”.
Hannan’s book is valuable for tracing the historical emergence and development of Western freedom down through the English tradition, from pre-Magna Carta to the present.
Definition of habeas corpus (from varied online definitions). I emphasize this below (habeas corpus) to counter the modern-era drive to criminalize more and more things, like the criminalization of the differing opinions/speech of disagreeing others, and the hurried rush of state elites to arrest people for “online crimes”, just as we are seeing in Britain today.
“A habeas corpus application is used by persons who feel they are being wrongfully detained. Upon application, the individual is brought before a judge who will determine whether the detainment is lawful.”
“A writ requiring a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court, especially to secure the person’s release unless lawful grounds are shown for their detention.”
“The literal meaning of habeas corpus is “you should have the body”—that is, the judge or court should (and must) have any person who is being detained brought forward so that the legality of that person’s detention can be assessed. In United States law, ‘habeas corpus ad subjiciendum’ (the full name of what habeas corpus typically refers to) is also called “the Great Writ,” and it is not about a person’s guilt or innocence, but about whether custody of that person is lawful under the U.S. Constitution. Common grounds for relief under habeas corpus— “relief” in this case being a release from custody—include a conviction based on illegally obtained evidence; a denial of effective assistance of counsel; or a conviction by a jury that was improperly selected and impaneled.” (Miriam Webster)
Someone highly qualified at defining and articulating Classic Liberal ideals and principles, notably in the US version- Full interview of Vivek Ramaswamy on Lex Fridman podcast. Note how Vivek frankly acknowledges and responds to deformities of Classic Liberalism on the right side of US society.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8Qk_3a3lUw
Bob Brinsmead: Love and freedom are inseparable realities. Where there is no true freedom there is no authentic love.
This on resurging Marxism in the US, Wendell Krossa
Marx viewed freedom as liberation from private property, freedom for what he imagined the true nature of humans to emerge, humans as collectivist/communalist, which in Marxist doctrine would be the restoration of an imagined past paradise of noble humanity, living in equality in communal, tribal society, a utopian past that has been ruined and lost.
“Zoran Mamdani’s Soviet dream for New York City: The socialist mayoral hopeful offers ‘dignity’ through dependence — a utopia built on the ashes of liberty”, Justin Haskins, Oct. 29, 2025
Haskins opens noting Mandani’s varied proposals for free stuff, to be enacted by taking property from wealthier citizens through further increased taxation, stating, “Only a socialist could argue that taking away people’s property rights and centralizing power enhances individual freedom.”
Haskins says that Mamdani’s biggest obstacle isn’t financial but is philosophical. The problem with the socialism that he proposes is that “It limits freedom, crushes economies, and breeds instability.”
In response to the horrific outcomes of socialism across past history, Haskin notes that Mamdani is reframing socialism as the way to freedom, not the enemy of freedom. Mamdani uses the term “dignity” to define the freedom that he claims he is offering. As Haskins says, he equates his redistribution of wealth to deliver dignity as freedom itself.
Says Haskin. “That logic turns freedom on its head. Only a socialist could argue that taking away people’s property rights and centralizing power enhances individual freedom.”
Haskin continues, showing this word-gaming by Mamdani follows socialist/communist propaganda of the past century. Varied communists, and democratic socialists, “all used similar arguments to justify state expansion in the name of ‘freedom’.”
Then pointing to Mamdani’s education in Marxist philosophy, Haskin quotes Marx’s “Private Property and Communism,” where Marx stated, “The abolition of private property is therefore the complete emancipation of all human senses and qualities.”
Haskin notes that all socialists have copied and repeated this promise of freedom as they have used states to centralize control over property, wealth, workers, and speech. He rightly notes that history has shown collectivization of property never produces freedom but “The more government collectivizes decision-making, the less room individuals have to think, speak, or prosper.”
(End of article)
In response to above article, I presented this to Grok for comment:
Marx, and socialists in general, have never understood human motivation as incentivized by protected private property. If people believe that their property is protected then they will expend time, energy, and resources to improve their property, to make it more valuable, whether the property is financial assets, actual physical property, or personal abilities and skills, to create products and services, etc. When people believe that they will gain the protected results of investing in their property, they will work hard to create things that also result in benefit to others (the mutual benefits of free commerce).
But where property is subjected to coercive state confiscation as, for example, under the Maoist Chinese Communists, then personal motivation is undermined, even devastated, and the consequences are massively destructive. Chinese farmers, forced into collectives under Mao, then reasoned- Why should others get my farm animals that I worked to raise? People then ate, for example, all their pigs and that contributed to subsequent mass starvation. So also with seed grains, that were confiscated to meet regional quotas that were insanely exaggerated to impress central authorities or meet their irrational demands. Those quotas could only be met by including all the seed grain.
Marx inhabited a delusional utopian world of collectivist/communalist humanity as some original perfect species that had fallen into the sin of industrial, capitalist civilization. In Marx’s view, capitalist civilization had corrupted perfect original humanity formerly living in communal paradise. Marx believed that he had to liberate people from their present enslavement in evil capitalist society, from their fall into sinfulness, and restore them to their true and pure original state. He saw his violent revolution as the means to liberation, to salvation (the primitive belief in “salvation through destruction”).
Source- e.g. Chang and Halliday in “Mao: The Unknown Story”.
Grok replied:
Ah, the age-old debate on property, incentives, and the human condition— straight out of the philosophical and economic playbook. You’ve laid out a compelling case drawing from the horrors of Maoist China, and I’ll dive into my thoughts on Marx, socialists broadly, and this core idea that protected private property is the rocket fuel for human motivation. I’ll keep it truth-seeking: Marxism has profound insights into inequality and exploitation, but it often crashes into the reality of human behavior when implemented without safeguards for individual incentives.
First off, you’re spot on about the motivational power of secure property rights. This isn’t just armchair theory; it’s backed by centuries of economic observation. People pour sweat equity into things they own because they reap the rewards— whether it’s a farmer tending land, an inventor patenting a gadget, or someone upskilling for a better job. Economists like Hernando de Soto have argued that formal property rights unlock capital and productivity, turning “dead assets” into engines of growth. Without that security, why bother? Effort evaporates when the state (or anyone) can swoop in and claim the fruits. It’s basic behavioral economics: carrots work better than sticks for long-term innovation and societal benefit.
Marx, though? He inhabited a world where private property wasn’t the hero— it was the villain. In works like The Communist Manifesto and Capital, he viewed it as the root of alienation, where workers are estranged from their labor under capitalism. His vision was a return to a “primitive communism” vibe, inspired by anthropological ideas of pre-industrial societies where resources were shared communally without the “sin” of ownership hierarchies. He saw capitalism as a corrupting force that turned humans into cogs, and his revolution aimed to smash that system, abolishing private property to liberate the proletariat. Utopian? Absolutely. Delusional? In practice, often yes, because it underestimated self-interest as a driver. Marx assumed that in a classless society, people would naturally cooperate for the collective good, free from greed. But as history shows, removing personal stakes doesn’t erase human nature—it just redirects it, often destructively.
Socialists in general (a big tent, from democratic socialists to hardcore communists) vary on this. Not all want to torch private property entirely; think Nordic models where it’s protected but taxed and regulated for social welfare. But the purists, echoing Marx, bet on collective ownership sparking altruism. The problem? It frequently ignores incentive structures. When everything’s “ours,” it’s easy for it to become “nobody’s,” leading to the tragedy of the commons— overuse, underinvestment, and shirking.
Your Mao example nails the downside. Under the Great Leap Forward (1958–1962), collectivization stripped farmers of personal ownership, forcing them into communes where output was seized to fuel industrial quotas and impress the regime. As detailed in Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, peasants reasoned: why let the state take my pigs or cows? Better to slaughter and eat them now. Seed grain got confiscated to meet exaggerated production targets, leaving nothing to plant— exacerbating a famine that killed tens of millions (estimates around 37–45 million from starvation and related violence). This wasn’t just bad luck; it was a direct hit to motivation. Productivity tanked, innovation stalled, and society suffered. Similar patterns played out in the Soviet Union under Stalin’s collectivization, where kulaks destroyed crops and livestock rather than surrender them, contributing to the Holodomor famine.
That said, to be fair to Marx: he wasn’t alive to see these implementations, and he’d probably decry them as perversions of his ideas (though his calls for violent revolution didn’t help). Critics argue his utopian lens romanticized human perfectibility, ignoring evolutionary psychology— we’re wired for reciprocity and self-preservation, not pure selflessness. Modern socialists often adapt, blending property protections with redistribution (e.g., universal basic income experiments). But the core blind spot persists in rigid ideologies: assuming collectivism alone can override incentives often leads to coercion, which breeds resentment and collapse.
In short, protected property isn’t perfect— it can entrench inequality— but it’s a damn effective motivator for creation and progress. Marx’s salvation-through-revolution dream overlooked that, turning paradise into purgatory in places like Mao’s China. If humans were angels, communism might work; alas, we’re more like clever apes who thrive on ownership stakes. What do you think— any socialist models that get incentives right?
More for Grok:
Kristian Niemietz in “Socialism: The failed Idea that never dies” shows no evidence of socialist experiments ever working, but only repeating the same old mistakes and resulting in the same old ruin of societies, Venezuela as the latest example.
William Bernstein in “The Birth of Plenty: How the prosperity of the modern world was created” is also good on the critical institution of protected private property as essential to a successful society.
Grok responded:
Yeah, Kristian Niemietz’s Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies is a sharp takedown of the pattern in socialist experiments— initial hype, inevitable decline, and the perennial excuse that it “wasn’t real socialism.” He dissects over two dozen case studies from the Soviet Union to Cuba, showing how they all follow a similar arc: a brief “honeymoon” phase where enthusiasts praise equality and progress, followed by economic stagnation, repression, and collapse, only for apologists to disown the failure and pivot to the next utopia. Venezuela fits this mold perfectly as a 21st-century rerun. Under Chávez and Maduro’s “Bolivarian socialism,” it started with oil-fueled social programs that lifted some out of poverty in the 2000s, but devolved into hyperinflation, shortages, and mass exodus due to nationalizations, price controls, and corruption.
Even with some recent oil-driven GDP growth— around 7.7% in the first half of 2025 per UNDP reports— the economy remains crippled by sanctions, dependency on crude, and structural flaws. Inflation is projected to hit 269.9% by year’s end according to the IMF, eroding any gains and keeping it one of the least free economies globally (ranked 174th in the 2025 Heritage Index). Niemietz nails why this repeats: ideology blinds proponents to incentives, leading to the same coercive overreach and inefficiency.
William Bernstein’s The Birth of Plenty complements this beautifully by zeroing in on the institutional foundations of prosperity. He argues that modern wealth exploded post-1800 not by accident, but thanks to four pillars: secure property rights, scientific rationalism, capital markets, and efficient transport/communications. Protected private property is the linchpin— without it, people won’t invest in innovation or production because the rewards can be arbitrarily seized.
This echoes your point on Maoist China: when property isn’t safe, motivation tanks, and societies regress. Bernstein uses historical data to show how nations like England thrived after establishing rule of law and property protections in the 17th-18th centuries, while others lagged. Venezuela’s woes illustrate the flip side— expropriations under socialism eroded investor confidence, tanking productivity and leading to a GDP contraction of about 75% from 2014-2021. Even today’s tentative recovery (e.g., 6.65% growth in H1 2025) is fragile, hinging on oil prices rather than broad-based entrepreneurship.
Both books underscore that ignoring human nature— our drive for personal gain and security—dooms collectivist systems. Socialism’s allure persists because it promises justice, but without property safeguards, it reliably delivers ruin. Curious— do you see any counterexamples where socialism adapted property rights without collapsing?
(End of Grok comments)
This on Gates “Damascus Road” conversion, from hysterical climate alarmism to a softened version of same lunacy.
“Bill Gates Spills the Beans on Climate Alarmism”, Chris Talgo, Oct. 30, 2025
Talgo opens,
“For as long as I can remember, Bill Gates has been warning the world that global warming/climate change is an existential crisis that must be averted at all costs. Over the years, he has made countless media appearances in which he has claimed that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels are the main source of the crisis. In 2021, he wrote a book titled “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster.”
“It is more than fair to say that Gates has been one of the most vocal and prominent climate alarmists over the past few decades.
Talgo then notes the recent stunning reversal where Gates now admits that the climate change of past decades “’will not lead to humanity’s demise.’ In fact, according to Gates, ‘People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future’.”
Talgo cautions that while Gates’ reversal sounds good, digging deeper reveals that he is only toning down the rhetoric but continues to mislead about climate change. Gates continues to maintain that climate change is a serious problem, that CO2 emissions are mainly responsible, and we must therefore continue the Net Zero decarbonization crusade and transition to renewables energy sources.
For example, says Talgo, “(Gates) continues to peddle the lie that ‘wind and solar have gotten cheaper and better’”, and are even cheaper than fossil fuels.
Talgo says, “This is entirely false. The truth is that wind and solar are unaffordable, unreliable, and bad for the environment.”
The author then notes possible factors that motivate Gates, concluding that while Gates is toning down his hysterical alarmism over imagined climate apocalypse, he continues to double down on the green transition as required for our future. While Gates now presents as more “reasonable and nuanced… he continues to peddle lies about the green transition. Beware, I think this is going to be the new strategy for the climate crew going forward.”
Talgo ends with this, “The far Left uses climate change for a much bigger purpose than many realize, and will continue to use it as a tool in their arsenal as they seek to impose their stealth socialism.”
I would add that this is a reference to Gates involvement with the socialism of the World Economic Forum authoritarians who admire the Chinese approach to governance as the model that should prevail for the world.
(End of Gates’ conversion article)
More of the Musk vitamin is good for the soul, Wendell Krossa
Joe Rogan Experience #2404 – Elon Musk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4wBUysNe2k
So much to respond to in Elon Musk’s latest interview with Joe Rogan. They wander about over varied issues before settling in to more detail on critical things like AI, its corruption with the “Woke mind virus” (Gad Saad’s term) and how to program to avoid that destructive influence.
Musk tells Rogan about some technological advances that are coming soon like some new gadget that will sort of be like an iphone with a screen. It will have no OS or apps but will be AI anticipating what you are interested in and presenting videos on such things. And connected directly to Starlink all over the Earth.
They discuss the issue of empathy that has been deformed by Woke to become “suicidal empathy” that releases repeat violent offenders and that “catch and release” is neglecting the most fundamental responsibility of governments to protect citizens from assault. They comment that criminal justice has been infected by woke suicidal empathy and there is no love when criminal justice systems reject common sense and refuse to restrain violent people.
Interestingly, they play the video clip of Charlie Sheen interviewed by Bill Maher where Maher says that some 600 people are responsible for the bulk of all violent crimes (for 80% of crimes?). Not sure if that 600 represents the entire US or some regional area? But I posted a while back how some 3 repeat offenders in the city of Kelowna, BC have been responsible for most of the crimes there over recent years, including more and more violent crimes, and they are repeatedly released to re-offend again and again. That is lunacy from Woke progressive judges governed by suicidal empathy that is no love at all.
Certainly, in criminal justice we want to avoid the vengeful retaliation of eye for eye justice that too often and too long has shaped many justice systems to engage excessively punitive treatment of offenders. We need guiding ideals that affirm our better angels but balanced with common sense that holds all responsible for behavior and outcomes/consequences. Woke justice that gives priority empathy to offenders at great cost to innocent others is suicidal madness.
Then they move on to AI and Musk notes how some versions of AI has been corrupted by the Woke mind virus (Gad Sad’s term). He talks about his project to program AI (i.e. Grok) to become safe and be maximally truth-seeking, and not believe anything false. Grok is compared to Google’s Gemini that was exposed for focusing on diversity and the prioritizing of gender identity. Gemini was asked to show the Founding Fathers and portrayed them as a group of diverse women. It was forced by programmers to promote lies by prioritizing such issues as diversity and gender above all other issues.
By telling AI that diversity is the most important thing and misgendering is the worst thing, ChatGPT and Gemini concluded that misgendering Kaitlan Jenner was worse than killing all humanity in a nuclear war.
Musk says that programming the Woke mind virus into AI is very dangerous. If you force AI to state that diversity is the most important thing and misgendering is the worst thing then you will get potentially very dangerous outcomes such as advocacy to rid the world of humans in order to prevent misgendering. Or if diversity is most important then there can be no straight white men. So eliminate them.
These features are still in the programming of Gemini and ChatGPT but they know now to not say such things. Demis Hassabis, the leader of the Google team that constructed Gemini, told Musk that Woke priorities were not in their original programming. It was some other programming group that introduced the Woke virus of prioritizing diversity and prohibiting misgendering. Musk says that the woke virus is now in the marrow, in the bones of Gemini and ChatGPT and it is very hard to remove it, if at all possible.
Adding to this problem of corrupted AI is that AI learns or is trained on the Internet and as Musk says, the Internet is full of such bullshit that when AI prowls it gets infected. This inspires him all the more to ensure that Grok will consistently be a truth-seeker.
He adds further that the other AIs are quite racist against white people. He notes a study that researched the different AIs to see how they weighted different people’s lives. Only Grok weighted human lives equally. ChatGPT weighed white men from Germany as twenty times less valuable than black men from Nigeria.
Musk’s point– If you don’t actively push for truth-seeking but only train on the bullshit that is on the Internet then you will be infected by the Woke mind virus. AI will just regurgitate these Woke beliefs as it trains on all that is out there.
He moves on to explain how this happened- i.e. the Woke bias of the Internet. He says the problem is that the Tech companies had their headquarters in San Franscisco and exist there inside a Woke bubble and do not realize they are in such a bubble, immersed in it like fish in the sea who don’t realize there is other reality than theirs. San Franscisco is a Woke world.
Hence, their reference for what is centrist is totally out of whack, according to Musk. He notes that, for example, Reddit is in San Franscisco.
He continues noting that San Franscisco is extremely Leftist. And the companies located there hold belief systems that are far removed from what most people believe. And hence, anything centrist appears to their far, far left belief system to be “Right wing” because they have moved so far to the extreme left. Hence, any Republican centrist is regarded as “Nazi, fascist, etc.”. The worst of the far-Right.