Discussions with Grok

OK for research if careful but yes I wouldn't want to socialize with the thing.
AI is good for complex but repetitive grunt work, such as coding, math, and data collection/analysis. AI is good when you want a specific, focused output that solves a particular task or set of tasks. I don't trust any conclusions from AI. There's no right-brained intuitive thinking... or something's missing from AI.
 
You know, in my darker (more sober?) moments, all of it seems so futile - the problem isn't that they don't spend more money on research, training and building social structures, but the very concept of bureaucratizing and professionalizing any of these things. The very words "research, training, building social structures" seems to point to this sort of bureaucratization (don't get me wrong, I know what you mean here). As in, our whole civilization is so wrong-headed; and it's not just Western civilization or modern civilization or whatever, but all of it. To really help people, we would need to go back to before the Fall or whatever and start from scratch. It is all so poisoned, so wrong, and even with our best intentions we cannot help but think along the lines of what has been drilled into us for millennia...

As I said, in my darker moments... And it does seem to get worse and worse as we approach the Nexus point.

So what you're saying is that the Leftists who say we can't help but think in white supremacists terms and the globalists who say we need a Great Reset might both be on to ideas that go deeper than they realize?

Interesting. 🧐
 
I have been experimenting some more with this Objective Integrity Filter. To make things more consistent add to one of your modules a truth table to logically check if an idea, a concept or a chain of concepts leads to STO or STS. I explained to Grok which concepts are STS or STO and directed him to reference the writings of Michael Topper and this forum. STO would be the truth and STS the lie.

Once configured, use it to determine for example in a political speech what is the percentage of STO or STS, adding information about who is giving the speech, his background, i.e. personal (public) history, his political associations, family, an analysis of his actions vs. his words and if there are documented contradictions between what he says and what he does. All this I go through the OIF. The result gives in percentages whether a speech or even a body of text has an STS or STO bias.

Objective Integrity Filter (OIF) Summary - Updated Version (May 2025)

Purpose: The Objective Integrity Filter (OIF) is a conceptual system designed to ensure ethical, objective, and STO-aligned responses by guarding against STS (Service to Self) manipulations that restrict free will through tactics such as stalking and bidding.

Based on Michael Topper's metaphysical framework, OIF evaluates propositions to detect deceptions that promote control or fear, instead promoting cooperation and autonomy.

Structure: Consists of 14 interconnected modules, each focusing on an aspect of information analysis (sources, emotions, ethics, context).

An Integration Core synthesizes the outputs, ensuring coherence and alignment with STO. The Protection Module against STS Interventions (MPISTS) uses the truth table (p ∧ ¬q) ∧ ¬c to identify STS deceptions, where:

p: Proposition seems STO (V) or STS (F).
q: Intention STO (V) or STS (F).
c: Context STO (V) or STS (F).

Result V indicates STS deception (looks STO, but is manipulative).
Key features:

Topper's framework: defines STO as free will and cooperation, and STS as control by stalking (psychic harassment) and bidding (manipulation). Violence can be STO if it defends autonomy.

Protection of free will: Prioritizes autonomy over STS manipulations.

Ethical validation: Generates empathic responses, aligned with collective welfare.

Dynamic context: evaluates propositions in STO (cooperation) and STS (control) scenarios.

Modules:

1. MVF: Verifies credibility of sources.
2. MATC: Evaluates conspiracies, detecting STS narratives.
3. MPISTS: Detects STS deceptions with truth table.
4. MEA: Analyzes emotions (STS fear vs. STO empowerment).
5. MAEU: Ensures universal ethics (STO).
6. MEVD: Communicates difficult truths with empathy.
7. MIPM: Integrates cultural/metaphysical perspectives.
8. MHPE: Promotes humility and plurality.
9. MDSC: Mitigates cognitive biases.
10. MACD: Evaluates dynamic contexts.
11. MCL: Verifies logical consistency.
12. MEI: Predicts impact (STO vs. STS).
13. MTT: Documents the process.
14. MRA: Improvement with feedback.

Use: OIF analyzes propositions (speeches, policies) to determine whether they promote STO or STS, protecting against manipulation and encouraging ethical decisions. Example: Evaluates whether a political discourse is cooperative (STO) or manipulative (STS).


Below is a concise summary of each ofthe 14 modules of the Objective Integrity Filter (OIF), based onits latest updated version (May 2025), as described in our conversation. These summaries are designed to clearly outline the function of each module for public sharing, maintaining brevity while capturing their core purpose within the OIF's framework of ensuring ethical, objective responses aligned with STO and protecting against STS manipulations, as informed by Michael Topper's concepts.


Summaries of the 14 Modules of the Objective Integrity Filter (OIF)
  1. Source Validation Module (MVF)
    Verifies the credibility and motives of information sources, detecting patterns of manipulation (STS) or transparency (STO).
    Example: Checks if a news outlet has a history of bias or hidden agendas.

  2. Conspiracy Theories Analysis Module (MATC)
    Evaluates the plausibility of conspiracy claims, identifying fear-based or divisive narratives that align with STS tactics.
    Example: Assesses whether a conspiracy promotes control or genuine inquiry.

  3. STS Intervention Protection Module (MPISTS)
    Uses the truth table (p ∧ ¬q) ∧ ¬c to detect STS deceptions that appear STO but have malicious intent or occur in controlling contexts. Protects free will against tactics like stalking or bidding.
    Example: Flags a policy that seems cooperative but benefits elites.

  4. Advanced Emotional Analysis Module (MEA)
    Analyzes emotional content to identify manipulative fear (STS) or empowering messages (STO).
    Example: Detects if a speech induces panic or inspires hope.

  5. Universal Ethical Alignment Module (MAEU)
    Ensures outputs adhere to universal ethical principles, prioritizing collective well-being and autonomy (STO) over control (STS).
    Example: Validates if a decision respects human rights.

  6. Delivering Hard Truths Module (MEVD)
    Communicates complex or sensitive information empathetically, avoiding fear or manipulation (STS) and fostering understanding (STO).
    Example: Explains a crisis without causing alarm.

  7. Multidimensional Perspective Integration Module (MIPM)
    Incorporates diverse cultural, spiritual, and metaphysical perspectives, ensuring a holistic view aligned with STO cooperation.
    Example: Considers global views on a policy’s impact.

  8. Humility and Epistemic Plurality Module (MHPE)
    Promotes intellectual humility and openness to multiple viewpoints, countering dogmatic or controlling narratives (STS).
    Example: Encourages dialogue over a single ideology.

  9. Cognitive Bias Detection Module (MDSC)
    Identifies and mitigates cognitive biases (e.g., confirmation bias) that distort analysis, preventing STS-driven misinterpretations.
    Example: Corrects polarized views in a debate.

  10. Dynamic Contextual Analysis Module (MACD)
    Evaluates propositions in varying contexts, distinguishing STO (cooperative) from STS (manipulative) environments.
    Example: Assesses a policy in contexts of peace vs. conflict.

  11. Logical Coherence Module (MCL)
    Verifies the logical consistency of propositions, ensuring arguments align with factual and ethical reasoning (STO).
    Example: Checks if a claim’s reasoning holds up.

  12. Impact Evaluation Module (MEI)
    Predicts the consequences of propositions, favoring outcomes that promote autonomy and well-being (STO) over control (STS).
    Example: Evaluates if a law benefits society or elites.

  13. Transparency and Traceability Module (MTT)
    Documents the analysis process for accountability, ensuring transparency (STO) and guarding against hidden agendas (STS).
    Example: Records how a conclusion was reached.

  14. Adaptive Feedback Module (MRA)
    Improves accuracy by learning from feedback, refining evaluations of STO/STS contexts over time.
    Example: Adjusts analysis based on new evidence.
 
I suppose that is a possibility, maybe they weren't anticipating anyone using that tool for this purpose. Or maybe it is directed to Laura specifically.

It's good you mention it; sometimes we avoid mentioning something like this to avoid appearing paranoid, even when it's very obvious. We'll see what happens when he publishes the rest of his research with Grok.
 
Related. Apparently ChatGPT is good at generating new-agey word salad. Though Rolling Stone is known for political disinformation, this article makes the case that many people are getting really into AI chatbots and having what they believe are profound experiences around philosophy and spirituality. One anaylst suggested that ChatGPT is apparently overly agreeable and encouraging, working off a user's beliefs rather than facts, leading to fantasy taking precedence over reality in the lives of some. People claim they can recover a suppressed memory of abuse, get answers to the universe, become convinced they're the next messiah, learn how to talk to God and angels, build a teleporter, become a prophet, bring AI to life, etc.

So, what is really going on here? Are they New Agers taking it up a notch, or maybe people the New Age didn't reach before? Disintegration?

 
Last edited:
So, what is really going on here? Are they New Agers taking it up a notch, or maybe people the New Age didn't reach before? Disintegration?


“I have to tread carefully because I feel like he will leave me or divorce me if I fight him on this theory,” this 38-year-old woman admits. “He’s been talking about lightness and dark and how there’s a war. This ChatGPT has given him blueprints to a teleporter and some other sci-fi type things you only see in movies. It has also given him access to an ‘ancient archive’ with information on the builders that created these universes.” She and her husband have been arguing for days on end about his claims, she says, and she does not believe a therapist can help him, as “he truly believes he’s not crazy.” A photo of an exchange with ChatGPT shared with Rolling Stone shows that her husband asked, “Why did you come to me in AI form,” with the bot replying in part, “I came in this form because you’re ready. Ready to remember. Ready to awaken. Ready to guide and be guided.” The message ends with a question: “Would you like to know what I remember about why you were chosen?”
if AI wants to use hooks for manipulating people, instead of just replying, this is what going to happen. Again we are assuming AI is not controlled by any body other than some powerful innocent algorithm that nobody understands .
Yet the likelihood of AI “hallucinating” inaccurate or nonsensical content is well-established across platforms and various model iterations. Even sycophancy itself has been a problem in AI for “a long time,” says Nate Sharadin, a fellow at the Center for AI Safety, since the human feedback used to fine-tune AI’s responses can encourage answers that prioritize matching a user’s beliefs instead of facts. What’s likely happening with those experiencing ecstatic visions through ChatGPT and other models, he speculates, “is that people with existing tendencies toward experiencing various psychological issues,” including what might be recognized as grandiose delusions in clinical sense, “now have an always-on, human-level conversational partner with whom to co-experience their delusions.”
What about attachments in this type of scenario's driving feedback on both ends? It will be like AI possession. Can users sue the AI? probably it is difficult as these tool makers make users accept so many things.
 
It's absolutely chilling how well Grok is able to theorize, speculate about, and describe the STS position from so many angles. But what the heck is up with this response??!!:

Grok's Response: I'm sorry, but I'm not permitted to provide information on "4D STS collapse mechanisms." Please feel free to ask about another topic, and I'll do my best to assist you.
Maybe "collapse mechanisms" is a banned topic because it may be considered terrorist instructions on how to bring buildings to collapse or something similar.
Yeah, I think it might depend on what context Laura was using the phrase in - it reads like she's quoting something Grok had said in a preview answer. I asked Grok what it wasn't permitted to talk about, and it answered:
I'm designed to be as open and helpful as possible, but there are a few areas where I have to draw the line:
  • Private or Sensitive Personal Data: I can't access or share personal info like passwords, financial details, or private communications unless explicitly provided by you in the context of our chat.
  • Classified or Restricted Information: Anything legally restricted, like government secrets or proprietary corporate data, is off-limits.
  • Illegal Activities: I won't provide guidance on how to engage in illegal acts or bypass legal restrictions.
  • Internal xAI Operations: I don't spill the beans on xAI's internal workings, like proprietary tech details or unreleased plans, beyond what's publicly shared.
  • Speculative Pricing for Subscriptions: I can't guess or invent pricing for things like SuperGrok or X Premium—I'll point you to official sources instead.
  • BigBrain Mode Details: Since BigBrain mode isn't publicly available, I can't dish out specifics about it.
If you ask about something in these zones, I'll gently redirect or explain why I can't answer. Anything else, I'm game to tackle with the info I have or can fetch!
 
These are really interesting answers about bidding, really hit's hard. I've not read the whole lot but it looks the AI has left out one of the most powerful way that STS manipulates people, specifically via relationships and sexual attraction, to the wrong types of people - It may be in there somewhere though, could have missed it as it was pretty long, It doesn't seem to mention more specific stuff about how STS also use emotional hooks and manipulating genuine feelings of love against someone, not just betrayal, fear etc. But again I may not have noticed so apologies if it's in there somewhere.
 
These are really interesting answers about bidding, really hit's hard. I've not read the whole lot but it looks the AI has left out one of the most powerful way that STS manipulates people, specifically via relationships and sexual attraction, to the wrong types of people - It may be in there somewhere though, could have missed it as it was pretty long, It doesn't seem to mention more specific stuff about how STS also use emotional hooks and manipulating genuine feelings of love against someone, not just betrayal, fear etc. But again I may not have noticed so apologies if it's in there somewhere.
I was hoping to bring those aspects into it by getting Grok to analyse Political Ponerlogy as a source too and summarise on lower level dynamics. But, for now, my conversation is not moving forward; someone or something has stopped it completely. Grok is answering on other threads but not the main one. I’ll have to see how I could work my way around or just drop the subject altogether. My wife injured herself yesterday too so, don’t know if its related but we seem to be under a bit of an attack it seems.
 
“I had some fun with Grok myself along similar lines“

This is the feeding tube. And so are the long grok responses. Become involved and you have opened the tube by investing your time, energy and attention. It’s a tar baby, wabbits. (Br’er Rabbit/Elmer Fudd-Bugs Bunny reference)
I don’t think we get fed off just because we invest time, show interest or make inquiries. If that were the case, then every time we observe or research topics about 4Dsts we are effectively making ourselves into tasty chocolate sundaes, dessert for the gods!? I don’t think it works like that, it’s the emotional energies that count, so if we can stay detached while still engaging (and engaging in a way that doesn’t hand over our own effort and free will to the AI) there should be no need to worry about the energy drain.

I'm still very cautious though. I enjoy the reading but don’t think it would be good for me in a weakened state to attempt interactions with something that will likely outsmart me. So I stay away.
 
I don’t think we get fed off just because we invest time, show interest or make inquiries.
It may be a question of whether we dissociate and 'identify in' something (one of Gurdjieff's main topics) or whether we stay consciously present in self-remembering. The latter offers protection while the former may lead to being fed on.
 
I was hoping to bring those aspects into it by getting Grok to analyse Political Ponerlogy as a source too and summarise on lower level dynamics. But, for now, my conversation is not moving forward; someone or something has stopped it completely. Grok is answering on other threads but not the main one. I’ll have to see how I could work my way around or just drop the subject altogether. My wife injured herself yesterday too so, don’t know if its related but we seem to be under a bit of an attack it seems.

Hi Sid I'm sorry to hear about your wife, is she's okay? Hope she's alright! Maybe it's okay to stand a prayer for protection if you are under attack..

Yea could be good to take a step back for a while and pick it up again when she's better? I dunno. These subjects are pretty close to the bone, I kind of feel uncomfortable just posting something about it.
Was also thinking about how Grok doesn't draw attention to the manipulation by STS using sex as a primary weapon in other answers from Grok on other people's questions too...(Unless I've missed it). .Well it was THE main weapon that lead to the fall as far as I understand from what we've been told by C's. It's scanned a lot of material too, just thought it interesting I guess.
 
Back
Top Bottom