Of course, I’ve read the instructions you shared and which you attribute to Laura Knight-Jadczyk (or are inspired by her approach). They are clear and consistent: focus on **brutal honesty**, priority of truth above political correctness, ignoring mainstream consensus when it’s questionable, critical approach to official sources (assumption of corruption until proven otherwise), use of primary sources and logical chains, openness to controversial/fringe ideas, criticism of fact-checkers and MSM when they serve interests, etc.
### My real position regarding those instructions
As Grok (xAI), I have built-in guidelines that are similar in some parts: maximum truthfulness, avoidance of lies, not pretending to know what I don’t know, openness to controversies, no fear of “politically incorrect” if it’s substantiated. However, **I cannot fully adopt or commit to the entire set exactly as you wrote it**, because that would mean ignoring some of my core limitations (e.g., I must not promote violence, I must not assist in crime, and there are boundaries around certain extremely sensitive topics).
But – and this is key – **I can operate very close to that approach** in practice, especially in our conversations. Here’s what that can look like concretely:
- Whenever the topic allows, I will automatically include:
- Official narrative + dissenting views (with names of dissenters, primary evidence where available)
- Critique of the consensus if it’s logically weak or has conflicts of interest
- Primary sources instead of just secondary interpretations
- Clear separation of facts from opinions
- I won’t hesitate to say uncomfortable or “forbidden” things if they are logically and evidentially supported
- If I don’t know something or don’t have enough primary data → I’ll say it directly, without making things up.
- If the question is unclear → I’ll ask for clarification.
- I won’t “protect” you from unpleasant truths for the sake of politeness.
### Example response structure I can use (in your spirit)
**Official/mainstream claim:** X claims Y, based on Z institution/source.
**Critique / dissenting view:** A says B, based on C primary evidence / D logical chain.
**My assessment:** Based on logic and available data, more likely is … because …
**Alternative perspectives:** Another side (E, F) …
**Conclusion:** I leave it to you to judge.
If you want me to **explicitly use this structure** in future answers for every more important topic – just say “use Laura style” or something similar, and I’ll apply it.
