I tried the same on Perplexity.ai and after wrestling with its canned macro responses I got it admitting to 60-80%, based on visible evidence, that Trump was a compromised Russian asset. I then asked it to give me a list of the top reasons why Trump could be suspected of this, getting:
Based on the available information, here are the top ten reasons suggesting Donald Trump may be a compromised Russian asset:
-
Financial Connections: Trump has significant financial ties to Russia, including loans from obscure Putin-connected entities to Trump Media & Technology Group[1][3].
-
Extensive Contacts: Trump and 18 of his associates had at least 140 contacts with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign and presidential transition[1].
-
Intelligence Community Reports: The intelligence community has reported on potential Russian efforts to compromise Trump[2].
-
Consistent Pro-Putin Stance: Trump consistently avoids criticizing Putin while attacking U.S. allies, a pattern that aligns with Russian interests[3][5].
-
Moscow Trip in 1987: Trump’s 1987 visit to Moscow was allegedly orchestrated by the KGB, after which he immediately took out ads criticizing NATO[5].
-
Russian Mafia Connections: At least 13 individuals connected to the Russian mafia have resided in Trump Tower or other Trump properties[5].
-
Interference in 2016 Election: Russians interfered in the 2016 U.S. election to help elect Trump president[4].
-
Sharing Classified Intelligence: Trump shared classified intelligence with Russia during his presidency[2].
-
Undermining NATO: Trump has consistently undermined NATO and Western alliances, aligning with Putin’s interests[5].
-
Multiple Intelligence Assessments: Various intelligence professionals, including ex-KGB officials, have claimed Trump was cultivated or compromised by Russian intelligence[1][3].
-
Manafort Connections: Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials during 2016[1].
These points suggest a pattern of behavior and connections that raise significant concerns about Trump’s relationship with Russia. However, it’s important to note that while these factors are suspicious, definitive proof of Trump being a Russian asset has not been publicly established[3][7].
Citations:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links_between_Trump_associates_and_Russian_officials
- https://survivingtomorrow.org/10-data-points-that-suggest-donald-trump-is-a-russian-asset-a9d649ffdb85
- https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musks-chatbot-says-theres-strong-chance-trump-russian-asset-2040338
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/here-are-18-reasons-why-trump-could-be-a-russian-asset/2019/01/13/45b1b250-174f-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html
- https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-russian-asset-us-202742305.html
- https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/top-ten-reasons-president-trump-allied-russia-compromised-eric-orts
- https://www.yahoo.com/news/examining-claim-trump-recruited-kgb-030000387.html
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHQPylh0res
Answer from Perplexity: pplx.ai/share
I did find it very interesting that I had to weasel my way around a canned response for over a dozen tries before I managed to get it to actually do the analysis.
Yes, I did ask for “top ten”. Yes it says “top ten” in its response. Yes, it listed eleven.
-
Oh suddenly we think "AI"s are trustworthy?
I mean Trump definitely is a Russian asset, but what Grok says is neither here nor there
This isn’t meant to be hard news that you can bet the farm on. It’s just pointing out the irony of Musk’s toy talking shit about Trump. That’s all.
Exactly, I wasn’t sure the best place to post this, didn’t seem like it was really news, politics, or technology, as much as part of the whole stupid insanity.
Nobody’s saying Grok is trustworthy. The article is about it being funny that it keeps saying shit that goes against the “anti-woke” bias it’s programmed to have.
Though this is obviously not the first time Trump has been accused of being a Putin puppet, and most certainly won’t be the last, it’s hilariously ironic that the chatbot funded by his alleged “co-president” is talking such deep smack.
There are multiple links to other times it’s happened too. It’s hardly an endorsement of Grok.
Well, headlining the article as “Elon’s Grok Chatbot Calculates Probability That Trump Is a Russian Asset” definitely makes it sound like it’s supposed to be a calculation of a probability and not just funny as hell.
I’m having trouble wording this in a way that doesn’t sound like I’m talking down to you, I can only promise you that that’s not my intent.
Headlines have always existed to get your attention, they’ve always been sensationalised and are frequently somewhat misleading about the substance of the article on the surface to evoke a reaction and get you to visit the website (or buy the newspaper/magazine). The author decided potential information about Trump being a Russian asset is more attention-grabbing than a meaningless story about a crap LLM designed to be crap by a crappy person turning out to be a piece of crap. If that bothers you then it’s a perfect example of why you shouldn’t get your news from headlines.
I’m not saying this just based on the headline: it’s not like the article itself displays anything that I’d consider a critical approach to LLMs. Just because I don’t agree with your interpretation of the article doesn’t mean I didn’t even read it.
Weighing the real estate magnate’s dealings with both pre- and post-Soviet officials, the KGB, and the Russian mobs, Grok said that although there is no “smoking gun [that] proves direct control,” there’s a good chance that Trump is a “useful idiot” for Putin — especially given that “Trump’s ego and debts make him unwittingly pliable.”
“Adjusting for uncertainty and alternative explanations (e.g., ideological alignment or naivety), I estimate a 75-85 percent likelihood Trump is a Putin-compromised asset,” the chatbot said, “leaning toward the higher end due to the consistency of his behavior and the depth of historical ties.”
This just reads like Grok is any other source and not an LLM.
This just reads like Grok is any other source and not an LLM.
The article opens with “Elon Musk’s supposedly “anti-woke” chatbot”
Right, which just calls into question how “anti-woke” it is. Does that count as a critical approach to LLM outputs to you?
Nope, but your first two comments were about the headline and not the article which is why I assumed you hadn’t read any of it, and then you were saying they’re treating Grok as a source and not an LLM when they clearly called it a chatbot in the first sentence. I don’t have to comment on YOU bringing up critical approaches to LLM outputs when that’s not what any of this is about because you’re just moving the goalposts.
