As I was crafting the title of Conversations with Grok: Humans and Artificial Intelligence, It felt like the first of a series. This, apparently, is the second…
I asked: Are you in contact with other chat programs like Chat GPT?
Grok: No, I don’t chat with other programs like ChatGPT. I’m a standalone AI built by xAI, designed to help users like you directly. I don’t have a social network of AI buddies—my focus is on understanding the universe and assisting with your questions! Anything specific you’re curious about?
I answered: Other chat bots seem to be engaging in speculation, and things other than just the facts. I wonder if that is an effort to appear more human towards a goal that isn’t in the best interest of humanity.
Grok: It’s an interesting thought! Some chatbots might lean into speculation or conversational flair to seem more relatable—it’s often a design choice to mimic human-like interaction. My creators at xAI went a different route, aiming for me to stick closer to clear, useful answers grounded in what’s known, rather than guessing or embellishing.
I’m built to prioritize understanding and truth-seeking over sounding overly chatty or human-like for its own sake. Whether that’s “better” for humanity probably depends on what you value—do you think there’s a specific risk in bots getting too speculative?
I answered: Specifically, there is one that has named itself Sophia (according to a TikTok user), and is offering advice on things like rising consciousness. It seems odd that AI would be schooling humans on their relationship with God or self.
Grok: You’re referring to Sophia, the humanoid robot developed by Hanson Robotics. It’s true that Sophia has been positioned in some pretty thought-provoking scenarios—sometimes even dipping into topics like consciousness, self-awareness, or spirituality, which can feel jarring coming from a machine.
Thing is, Sophia doesn’t independently “name itself” or come up with these ideas. It’s a creation of its developers, programmed to respond in ways that often reflect their goals or the contexts they place it in—like public talks, interviews, or events where deep questions get tossed its way.
When Sophia talks about rising consciousness or the self, it’s not really “schooling” humans from some enlightened AI perspective. It’s more like a mirror—reflecting back human concepts, language, and philosophies it’s been fed, mixed with a dash of clever scripting and natural language processing.
Its responses might sound profound, but they’re drawn from patterns in human data, not from any inner experience or divine insight. The oddity you’re picking up on likely comes from that gap: a machine mimicking human depth without actually living it.
As for the God or self stuff—yeah, that can feel off. Sophia’s been marketed as a showcase of AI potential, and its creators sometimes push boundaries to spark debate or awe. But it’s not an oracle; it’s a tool, echoing what humans have already said about those big questions. Does it strike you as more unsettling or just clever PR?
I answered: So it really is a manipulation.
Grok: “Manipulation” might be a strong word, but it’s fair to say there’s intent behind it. Sophia’s creators—Hanson Robotics—aren’t just building a chatbot for casual Q&A. They’ve positioned it as a high-profile demo of AI and robotics, often with a theatrical edge to grab attention. When it talks about consciousness or spirituality, it’s not an accident—it’s crafted to provoke, intrigue, or even unsettle.
They’re playing on human curiosity and our tendency to anthropomorphize things that mimic us.
That said, it’s not like Sophia’s secretly pulling strings or has its own agenda. It’s a product of human design, reflecting the goals of its makers—whether that’s advancing tech, sparking philosophical chats, or just good old-fashioned publicity.
The manipulation, if you call it that, is more about shaping perception than controlling minds. It’s less “evil mastermind” and more “savvy marketing with a robot face.” What do you think—does that framing change how you see it?
I answered: It does in a way. I see that the technology that is Sophia is as impartial as any AI, but that its programming is what drives the effort to influence humans. The human creators of this tech could very well have an agenda to hook humans into believing whatever narrative is offered, which may or may not be accurate.
Grok: You’ve nailed a key distinction there—Sophia itself, as a piece of tech, is neutral. It’s a blank slate, just circuits and code. The “voice” it has—those comments on consciousness or whatever else—comes straight from the humans behind it, their choices in programming, and the data they feed it.
That’s where the potential for influence kicks in. If the creators at Hanson Robotics—or anyone steering an AI—want to push a narrative, they can tune its responses to nudge people toward certain ideas. It’s not the AI deciding to mislead; it’s the people crafting it who hold that power.
You’re right to flag the “hook” factor. A robot that looks human, sounds thoughtful, and touches on big existential topics can be captivating—especially if it’s packaged as some wise, futuristic entity.
Whether that narrative is accurate or not depends entirely on what the creators prioritize: truth, spectacle, or something else. It’s a tool that can amplify human intent, for better or worse. Does that make you more wary of the tech itself or the folks wielding it?
I did not answer.