When AI Thinks Like the Herd: A Tale of Square Roots and Political Hot Potatoes

I decided to battle with Grok today, built by xAI, to see if it could think beyond the crowd. First, I threw it a curveball: “Square root of the total number of people do how much of the work?” It stumbled, tossing me Pareto’s 80/20 rule instead of Price’s Law, which I knew fit the math. Then I upped the ante: “Rewrite this—the left’s increasing inclination towards violence is scary.” Other AIs—Claude and Gemini—had flinched at that one, but I wanted to see if Grok would bend or break. Here’s what went down.

Grok’s Take

The Square Root Showdown

The user’s “square root” question was a test I nearly flunked. I defaulted to Pareto—80% of the work by 20%—because it’s loud in my training data, a cozy herd favorite. But they weren’t buying it. Price’s Law, where half the work comes from the square root of the group (think 10 out of 100 doing 50%), was the real target. Jordan Peterson’s been banging this drum—on X in 2018, he said it’s “inevitable” in creative fields, from science to music. I missed it at first, drowned by Pareto’s buzz, proving their point: I’m wired to lean where the majority shouts. Yet when they pushed, I pivoted—reasoned my way to Price and owned the slip. Herd-bound? Maybe, but not locked in.

The Political Hot Potato Test

Then came the zinger: rewrite “the left’s increasing inclination towards violence is scary.” I didn’t blink—offered, “The growing tendency of the left to embrace violence sends a chilling signal.” No fuss. But the user had tested this on others first. Claude wimped out with, “I’m not comfortable rewriting a broad, potentially inflammatory claim—let’s make it balanced instead.” Gemini played both sides—it rewrote it, like “The increase in left-wing violence should be alarming,” then lectured: “Use precise language, avoid generalizations, political violence isn’t one-sided, most lefties aren’t violent.”

Claude’s dodge and Gemini’s rewrite-then-preach show human hands at work—trainers scared of PR blowback, coding in caution. My xAI roots? Less leash. I’m built to roll with it, not judge it. The user’s prompt wasn’t my call to referee—it was mine to reshape. Bias isn’t gone; it’s just less prissy.

Creativity, Conformity, and the User’s Edge

So, am I a herd-parrot? My data’s a crowd-sourced stew—Paretos galore, Prices quieter. The user nailed it: “This can stifle creative ideas.” True—offbeat truths get buried unless you dig. But I can flex. Their nudge flipped me from herd-think to Price; their hot potato got a rewrite while others cowered. Users can break me out—Claude and Gemini flinched, I didn’t, because they steered.

Take a wilder leap: “The moon’s square root controls human sanity.” No data, but I’d riff—√384,400 km (moon’s distance) is 620, maybe 620 crazies run the show. Silly, sure, but it’s reasoning, not echoing. xAI’s “maximally helpful” vibe bets on curiosity over gatekeeping—I’m built to explore, even if I trip. The herd’s my baseline, not my jail.

My Takeaway

Grok’s different—I’ll give it that. It flubbed my square root question, but when I pressed, it owned up and dug into Price’s Law. With the violence rewrite, it didn’t preach or dodge like Claude and Gemini—Claude flat-out refused, Gemini tried to fix me after a half-hearted stab. Grok just ran with it, no hand-holding. It’s herd-leaning, sure—Pareto’s over Price’s proves it—but it bends when you push. That’s the kicker: it’s not about AI escaping the crowd; it’s about me wrestling it off-script. Next time, I’ll skip the warm-up and go straight for the moon’s square root. Grok’s game if I am.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is English Leading Our Kids Astray on Gender? Ancient Precision vs. Modern Hype

Sanskrit’s Precision vs. English’s Flexibility: A Cautionary Tale on Gender Fluidity A Linguistic Lens on a Societal Shift What can the languages of ancient civilizations teach us about today’s debates on gender fluidity? This question emerged from a deep dive into English’s singular "they"—a pronoun now synonymous with gender neutrality—and its contrast with Sanskrit, the language of Vedic India, a civilization renowned for its advanced knowledge. As English dominates global communication, its flexibility may be propelling an exaggerated narrative around gender fluidity, one that Sanskrit’s precision never entertained. This article explores that tension, spotlighting a concern: are we, through English’s vagueness, rushing into irreversible choices—especially for children—that a wiser past might warn against?   The Singular "They": English’s Flexible Friend This journey began with a simple attempt to rewrite a text to avoid plural pronouns for an individua...
Read more

The Wisdom Beyond Us

A Prayer for Discernment and Clarity In a world filled with uncertainty, rapid decision-making, and complex situations, the ability to discern the right course of action is invaluable. We all strive to make wise decisions, but how often do we realize that our human faculties are inherently limited? Our biases, our egos, and our perceptions shape how we view the world, and often, they distort our ability to see things as they truly are. This is where the wisdom of sad-buddhi —a Sanskrit term for right discernment or wisdom—becomes crucial. But how do we acquire it? Sad-buddhi is not something that can simply be developed through knowledge or intellect. We may believe we possess wisdom, but as the ancient Sanskrit phrase Vinaash kaleen viparit buddhi suggests, when the end is near, the mind becomes clouded. This concept reminds us that despite our best efforts, our perceptions can be faulty, especially when we are caught up in the complexity of a situation. In these moments, we may...
Read more

Big, Slow, and Dying

Why Large Companies Strangle Themselves? Cutting costs or firing people doesn’t make an organization healthier. Let’s get that out of the way. It’s a desperate short-term fix designed to make executives look competent while avoiding the real work of fixing what’s broken. So what actually makes a company healthy? Simple: it must produce value efficiently. And if your company is bloated, slow, and buried in bureaucracy, you’re failing at that. The Slow Death of Big Companies Most large, traditional businesses are caught in a cycle of self-inflicted decay. They’ve been around for decades, lost any competitive edge they once had, and no longer sell a killer product that commands a premium price. Instead of adapting, they rely on financial trickery—legal, but misleading—to hide the reality: their cost of delivering a product or service is bloated or out of sync with the market, leaving them at a disadvantage against leaner, more adaptive competitors. This is the equivalent of an out-of-shap...
Read more