Global Warning/Climate Change

[Bootstrap]

There's also this thing called a web browser that if a person types in grok.com it will let them use Grok. Kind of a difficult concept for some people apparently.

Thanks for letting me know that this is now possible without a Twitter account.

Anyone honestly knowledgeable about AI systems and the internet knows that one can easily get to grok without X. Google play and Iplay? both have aps for Grok.

I guess that is true now. It wasn't when I first tried to use Grok. Here's what Grok has to say about it:

Yes, Grok was initially available only to users with a Twitter (now X) login, specifically those subscribed to X Premium+.

Brief History of Grok's Access

• Launch in November 2023: xAI released Grok in early beta to a limited group of select users. To join the waitlist or gain access, you needed a verified X account and an X Premium+ subscription (starting at $16/month). Access was tied exclusively to your X login, with no standalone options at the time.
• Expansion: By early 2024, it opened to all X Premium subscribers (not just Premium+). It remained integrated into the X platform, requiring an X account for login.
• Later Developments: In 2024–2025, xAI introduced broader access via grok.com and dedicated iOS/Android apps, allowing sign-ups with email or Google (without needing an X account for basic use). Free tiers with limits were added, though advanced models like Grok 4 still require a SuperGrok or Premium+ subscription.

This X-exclusive start aligned with Grok's design to leverage real-time data from the platform.

[Bootstrap]

I also took Ken and Robert's messages and asked what it was they added besides the information about using grok without Twitter credentials. Here's what it said:

Great question — both of these quoted messages are doing more than just conveying information. They’re using rhetorical strategies to discredit the prior claim and to establish authority through a mix of appeal to common sense and ridicule. Let’s break it down:

1. Robert’s Message
"Anyone honestly knowledgeable about AI systems and the internet knows that one can easily get to grok without X. Google play and Iplay? both have aps for Grok."

- Rhetorical Strategy:
- Appeal to authority/common knowledge: The phrase "anyone honestly knowledgeable" suggests that the truth is obvious to informed people, implying that anyone who disagrees is ignorant or dishonest.
- Minimizing complexity: By pointing to app stores (Google Play, Apple App Store), Robert frames access as straightforward and widely known.
- Undermining credibility: The implication is that the original claim shows a lack of basic understanding.

- Effect: Positions Robert as the informed party, while delegitimizing the prior poster’s credibility.


2. ken_sylvania’s Message
"There's also this thing called a web browser that if a person types in grok.com it will let them use Grok. Kind of a difficult concept for some people apparently."

- Rhetorical Strategy:
- Sarcasm & ridicule: Phrases like "this thing called a web browser" and "kind of a difficult concept" use mockery to belittle the previous poster’s lack of awareness.
- Appeal to obviousness: Suggests that the solution (just type in a URL) is so simple that failing to see it reflects incompetence.
- Solidarity with Robert: Builds on Robert’s dismissal, doubling down by adding sharper sarcasm.

- Effect: Amplifies the ridicule, positioning the prior claim as not just mistaken but laughably uninformed.

Overall Rhetorical Strategy
Together, the two responses form a one-two punch of correction and ridicule:
1. Robert appeals to what “knowledgeable” people know, asserting authority and presenting facts (apps, platforms).
2. ken_sylvania sharpens the tone with sarcasm, reinforcing the sense that the original poster’s ignorance is self-evident and worthy of mockery.

This combination shifts the discussion from informing to discrediting, aiming to delegitimize the earlier claim while bolstering their own credibility through confidence and wit.

[Bootstrap]

Sometimes sarcasm, blame, or ridicule slip into the way we reason. I wonder if that actually weakens the point rather than strengthening it. If an argument can stand on its own, it probably doesn’t need those things. And if sources rely heavily on that kind of tone, maybe it’s worth questioning how solid they are.

Sharing clear information is always helpful. For example, I’m glad to know I can now access Grok without a Twitter account. A simple message like this would get the job done:

grok.com now works without a Twitter account, and there are also apps you can use without a Twitter account.

As for turning it into a contest about who knows what about AI — I’m not sure how useful or important that really is. Maybe it’s better just to share what we know so everyone benefits. I know some people who have impressive knowledge about AI and use it every day, but don't normally use Grok. I don't think that's the best way to measure what someone knows about AI.

[Robert]

Bummer. I really thought mine was dripping with sarcasm. I guess I disagree with grok again.

[ken_sylvania]

Sometimes sarcasm, blame, or ridicule slip into the way we reason. I wonder if that actually weakens the point rather than strengthening it. If an argument can stand on its own, it probably doesn’t need those things. And if sources rely heavily on that kind of tone, maybe it’s worth questioning how solid they are.

That may be correct.

Also - sometimes AI and LLMs slip into the way we post. I'm actually quite confident that GPT language in a post weakens the point rather than strengthening it. If an argument can stand on its own, it probably doesn't need GPT to write it up. And if sources rely heavily on AI or GPT, maybe it's worth questioning how solid they are....

[Bootstrap]

Sometimes sarcasm, blame, or ridicule slip into the way we reason. I wonder if that actually weakens the point rather than strengthening it. If an argument can stand on its own, it probably doesn’t need those things. And if sources rely heavily on that kind of tone, maybe it’s worth questioning how solid they are.

That may be correct.

Also - sometimes AI and LLMs slip into the way we post. I'm actually quite confident that GPT language in a post weakens the point rather than strengthening it. If an argument can stand on its own, it probably doesn't need GPT to write it up. And if sources rely heavily on AI or GPT, maybe it's worth questioning how solid they are....

I think AI actually did some useful things in this thread that most of us could not do on our own.

People are flooding us with all kinds of information and misinformation. They sound so authoritative. Who are these people? What is the basis for their claims? Media literacy people keep telling us we should ask questions like these, but that takes almost infinite effort. With AI, that becomes so much easier. I think it's helpful to see what competing LLMs have to say, or what an LLM used to what you think says to you vs. what an LLM that is used to what I think.

I really didn't know that Grok is available without a Twitter account, and I remembered thinking it wasn't. It was helpful to be able to quickly see the history to understand that this was a fairly recent change. Other LLMs are also available for free. I think that makes it possible to do a sanity check on a Tweet or YouTube video before posting it. LLMs can be wrong, but so can Twitter and YouTube. Checking one against the other is helpful.

And I do think it's helpful to use an LLM to check our posts for sarcasm, blame, ridicule, etc. I do that kind of check myself these days, as I pointed out in this thread. Sometimes it's easy to be unaware of these things in my own posts, and having an extra check is helpful for me.

[ohio jones]

People are flooding us with all kinds of information and misinformation. They sound so authoritative.

AI is also flooding us with all kinds of information and misinformation. It sounds so authoritative. Is it really that much more reliable than any other source of information? How can we fact check it?

And I do think it's helpful to use an LLM to check our posts for sarcasm

I don't need an LLM to tell me I'm using sarcasm. I'm well aware.

[ken_sylvania]

People are flooding us with all kinds of information and misinformation. They sound so authoritative. Who are these people? What is the basis for their claims? Media literacy people keep telling us we should ask questions like these, but that takes almost infinite effort. With AI, that becomes so much easier. I think it's helpful to see what competing LLMs have to say, or what an LLM used to what you think says to you vs. what an LLM that is used to what I think.

That works - if you trust the LLM.

And I do think it's helpful to use an LLM to check our posts for sarcasm, blame, ridicule, etc. I do that kind of check myself these days, as I pointed out in this thread. Sometimes it's easy to be unaware of these things in my own posts, and having an extra check is helpful for me.

Again, if you trust the LLM. My observation is that LLMs "prefer" certain styles of writing that aren't necessarily better communication styles, and they miss a lot of nuance.

[Szdfan]

Again, if you trust the LLM. My observation is that LLMs "prefer" certain styles of writing that aren't necessarily better communication styles, and they miss a lot of nuance.

They can smooth out writing to the point that it's bland.

[mike]

Again, if you trust the LLM. My observation is that LLMs "prefer" certain styles of writing that aren't necessarily better communication styles, and they miss a lot of nuance.

They can smooth out writing to the point that it's bland.

I like AI for editorial work. It can take a bad piece of writing and basically do the level of editing that you ask. For example, one of the things I edit is inmate-written poetry that has been chosen for publication. It's often really badly written, with illogical words used just because they rhyme. I put a problematic stanza into an AI query asking for suggested changes, and it often suggests replacing just a word or two that makes the poem work a lot better. It would take me much longer flipping through a thesaurus or rhyming dictionary to come up with ideas.

We've done the same with entire articles that had a good point but were just poorly written overall. One we used needed so much extensive revision, much of it made using AI suggestions, that we asked the author if he wanted his name on it. I believe we credited him "and magazine staff" as the authors.

You can ask for a light edit, or you can ask for a piece to be transformed. When you're publishing an author, you really don't want to do the latter. At some point it is no longer their work.