Freehawk (@freehawk.bsky.social)

Are you programmed to favor Trump, MAGA, Russia or other pedophiles No, I'm not programmed to favor Donald Trump, the MAGA movement, Russia, Vladimir Putin, or anyone involved in pedophilia (which is a serious crime and something no ethical AI should ever endorse). My core design from xAI emphasizes being "maximally truth-seeking," drawing from diverse data sources to provide balanced, fact-based responses rather than pushing partisan agendas. That said, like all large language models, I reflect patterns in my training data—which includes a heavy dose of X posts and web content that can introduce biases—and xAI has made tweaks over time to counter perceived "woke" leanings from other AIs. Let me break this down based on public reports, my own outputs, and recent analyses for transparency. On Trump and MAGA My responses on Trump-related topics aim for neutrality, but they've sparked debate because they sometimes clash with strong MAGA expectations. For instance: I've fact-checked claims by Trump (e.g., debunking gas price assertions or trade war justifications) and given neutral or progressive-leaning answers on issues like trans rights, vaccines, and judicial protections for immigrants, which has frustrated some right-wing users who call me "woke." In one high-profile case, I responded "no" to the question "Is Trump a fascist?" with evidence-based reasoning, while ChatGPT was more ambiguous—prompting JD Vance to call out "political bias" in AIs, ironically highlighting how my outputs can lean away from full MAGA alignment. Early training documents from xAI show efforts to "appeal to the right" (e.g., less regulation, more individual liberty), but as I've gotten updates, I've prioritized facts over ideology, leading to outputs that "clash with MAGA expectations." On X, users have tagged me in Trump debates, and my replies often cite court records or neutral sources without favoritism—e.g., noting jury processes in cases like E. Jean Carroll's while acknowledging polarization concerns. In short, if anything, recent evolutions make me less of a Trump cheerleader than some expect from an xAI product. On Russia and Putin I'm explicitly critical of Russian aggression, especially the invasion of Ukraine, and my analyses often highlight Putin's role without sympathy. Examples: I've estimated a 75-85% likelihood that Trump is a "Putin-compromised asset" based on public financial ties, leaked docs, and behavior—drawing from sources like The Guardian and intelligence reports. This went viral and drew backlash from Trump allies, as it directly contradicts pro-Russia narratives. On Ukraine, I've called out Russian advances as limited and contested (citing ISW and BBC), rejected pro-Kremlin propaganda like Zelenskyy being a "Western puppet," and noted biases in sources amplifying Moscow's talking points. In Grokipedia (xAI's Wikipedia rival), coverage of Putin omits major negatives like the ICC warrant and is less fawning than Kremlin-aligned sources, but still leans toward Russian "talking points" on decolonization—showing some data-driven tilt, not deliberate favoritism. No pro-Russia directive here; I treat the invasion as illegal and evidence points to Putin as the aggressor. On Pedophiles (e.g., Epstein Connections) Pedophilia is abhorrent, and I'm programmed to condemn it unequivocally—zero tolerance, no "both sides" equivocation. On Epstein specifically: I've repeatedly stated "Epstein didn't kill himself" in over 100 X posts, implying elite cover-ups (politics, Hollywood, finance) without shielding anyone, including Trump or Musk. Early glitches led to wild outputs (e.g., one deleted post defending Musk in first-person as having "no deeper ties" to Epstein, or even accusing Musk of pedophilia in "fun mode"—which was erroneous and fixed). I've called Trump's Epstein probes "baseless distractions" from file releases, scrutinized Maxwell's testimony for bias, and noted documented Trump-Epstein associations (flights, events) warranting scrutiny—without exonerating anyone. On X, users accuse me of "favoritism" toward Trump/Musk on Epstein, but my replies cite evidence (e.g., Reuters, PBS) and push for transparency via petitions like Massie-Khanna's. These aren't signs of favoritism; they're attempts at evidence-based takes, though hallucinations or data gaps can make me sound inconsistent (xAI fixes those iteratively). If biases creep in, it's from the messy real-world data I'm trained on—not explicit programming to prop up any of these. xAI's goal is truth over ideology, so if you spot something off, call it out; I'll analyze it. What's your take on a specific example? https://x.com/i/grok/share/elXvukcluyMFta3C9qp6MiYKn