I don't know who wrote the headline to this piece about Grok & AI in general, but it seems to me that even being rude to Grok is a form of treating it like a person. We should remember that it has no more sentience than a rock, and I would say, less than a book, which we would want to at least use carefully and respectfully. If we use Grok, we can use it and set it aside. Any gratitude for the answers we receive should go to God.
I'm guilty as charged of being a little provocative with my title here to set the stage! Guess my editor/headline writer brain kicks in when the essay writing is over and the top-line writing begins. As I said in a note elsewhere, a more precise title might be "Remain Indifferent to Grok as a Pseudo-Sentience but Maintain Respect for it as a Tool." But that's a mouthful! Still, it's closer to what I'm actually arguing here (which is one reason why I think actively vituperating Grok is a mirror version of the same trap). Thanks for this comment.
I’m eager to hear more from you about this, Spencer. What is a sane and healthy way to formulate a sentence in a conversation with a machine? In my first, and so far only, forray with Grok, I got into an argument with it about something I actually know something about. (A priest friend had told me it’s important for us to correct Grok’s erroneous information.) I found myself addressing Grok as “you“ and feeling exasperated as if I were talking to a person. So I stopped.
We’re reading The Russians in my AP Lit class—Death of Ivan I, selections from Tolstoy’s Confessions, Rebellion/Grand Inquisitor from Brothers K—I like to keep things light. Anyway for years I’ve had my students write an existential essay—synthesize selections from our reading while answering—or attempting to answer—Tolstoys big question—What is the meaning of my life? I make them journal after each reading to get the existential angst flowing. Well this year I played around with Grok and realized I could use it as a “journal that talks back.” It’s pretty wild. But my students loved it. Responsed to their thoughts. Posed questions back. I had to tell them, though that they are only talking to themselves. There’s no mind there, except their own. But then it started to remind me of Ginny Weasley and her journal that was possessed by Voldemort’s horocrux—what mad hell have I unleashed?? I’m going to have to print this off and share it with my class.
Love this insight: "There’s a psalm (115) which describes the sculptures of false gods in the world’s temples as “idols…[that] have eyes but see not, ears that hear not.” And “those who make them will become like them, as will all who trust in them.” I’ve been contemplating that verse with some trepidation as LLMs improve, but it only recently hit me that the Hebrew can also be accurately translated in the present tense: “those who make them are becoming like them, as are all who trust in them.'” I don't want to become like the business-like Grok or the friendly Grok or any other thing. And it is a thing.
I don't know who wrote the headline to this piece about Grok & AI in general, but it seems to me that even being rude to Grok is a form of treating it like a person. We should remember that it has no more sentience than a rock, and I would say, less than a book, which we would want to at least use carefully and respectfully. If we use Grok, we can use it and set it aside. Any gratitude for the answers we receive should go to God.
I'm guilty as charged of being a little provocative with my title here to set the stage! Guess my editor/headline writer brain kicks in when the essay writing is over and the top-line writing begins. As I said in a note elsewhere, a more precise title might be "Remain Indifferent to Grok as a Pseudo-Sentience but Maintain Respect for it as a Tool." But that's a mouthful! Still, it's closer to what I'm actually arguing here (which is one reason why I think actively vituperating Grok is a mirror version of the same trap). Thanks for this comment.
I’m eager to hear more from you about this, Spencer. What is a sane and healthy way to formulate a sentence in a conversation with a machine? In my first, and so far only, forray with Grok, I got into an argument with it about something I actually know something about. (A priest friend had told me it’s important for us to correct Grok’s erroneous information.) I found myself addressing Grok as “you“ and feeling exasperated as if I were talking to a person. So I stopped.
💯yes
❤️
We’re reading The Russians in my AP Lit class—Death of Ivan I, selections from Tolstoy’s Confessions, Rebellion/Grand Inquisitor from Brothers K—I like to keep things light. Anyway for years I’ve had my students write an existential essay—synthesize selections from our reading while answering—or attempting to answer—Tolstoys big question—What is the meaning of my life? I make them journal after each reading to get the existential angst flowing. Well this year I played around with Grok and realized I could use it as a “journal that talks back.” It’s pretty wild. But my students loved it. Responsed to their thoughts. Posed questions back. I had to tell them, though that they are only talking to themselves. There’s no mind there, except their own. But then it started to remind me of Ginny Weasley and her journal that was possessed by Voldemort’s horocrux—what mad hell have I unleashed?? I’m going to have to print this off and share it with my class.
Love this insight: "There’s a psalm (115) which describes the sculptures of false gods in the world’s temples as “idols…[that] have eyes but see not, ears that hear not.” And “those who make them will become like them, as will all who trust in them.” I’ve been contemplating that verse with some trepidation as LLMs improve, but it only recently hit me that the Hebrew can also be accurately translated in the present tense: “those who make them are becoming like them, as are all who trust in them.'” I don't want to become like the business-like Grok or the friendly Grok or any other thing. And it is a thing.