GROK's GIBBERISH:Is a NATIVE CHATBOT the Answer?
At the recent Artificial Intelligence summit held in Paris, Prime Minister Modi, in joint presidency with the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, declared that artificial intelligence doth alter not only the economy, society, and defense, but politics itself. Doubtless, his pronouncement was intended to highlight the positive influences of artificial intelligence; however, a darker, more negative aspect is rapidly emerging. In the past year, Google’s AI chatbot, Gemini, offered an offensive commentary regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi, prompting swift governmental action. Google conceded that Gemini was not infallible and possessed limitations. Implicitly, they issued an apology and vowed to effect improvements. The government, too, swiftly issued new guidelines concerning AI-generated content. Yet, in the matter of Elon Musk’s chatbot, Grok, it is presently whispered in the newspapers, through channels of sources, that the Ministry of Information Technology doth hold Musk’s X responsible for Grok’s contentious responses, and is poised to pursue legal recourse. The Ministry, for its part, doth maintain that it hath issued no notice to Grok, or its parent company, X, though dialogue continues on the matter. Evidence abounds, both within India and across the globe, that the X platform doth operate in a manner that serves its commercial interests. Though all do acknowledge the power of Elon Musk, darling of Trump and master of Grok, truth dictates that the government must adopt so stern a posture toward X in the matter of Grok that it might serve as a cautionary tale to other chatbot manufacturers.
Some may demur, reciting the litany of freedom of expression and the fortitude to embrace truth. They might decry such thinking as reactionary, anti-scientific, and inimical to technological progress. But the matter at hand is not one of theoretical debate, but rather, a reckoning with the potential practical perils of artificial intelligence, which must be viewed as a defence against machinic assaults and their dominion over mankind. Verity is ever commendable, yet constraints are ordained for men in the utterance of unpalatable truths; nonetheless, the unveiling of harsh realities is not only welcomed but should be embraced, for only through such revelation can progress and betterment be achieved, be it in the social, political, scientific, or any other realm. This argument, however, is valid only for impartial men, not for machines crafted by others, driven by particular biases, and thus, prone to prejudiced behavior. Such fears are not unfounded. When disparate chatbots are posed the same query, their responses, though often similar in substance, differ vastly in style and tone. This variance is predicated upon the technology and data by which they are crafted. It is beyond question that, in time, these responses might harbor even more distinct connotations and implicit meanings. Just action against Grok or X is not warranted merely because Grok’s answers discomfit the government, the BJP, its parent organization, affiliated leaders, and supporters. There is no assurance that such chatbots will comport themselves in a similar fashion toward another government or power. If a chatbot doth illuminate the systemic deficiencies of democratic governments in a reasoned manner, it is to be welcomed; yet, there is no guarantee that it doth so impartially, untainted by malevolent intent or a predetermined agenda. Therefore, any government faced with such technological trends must mount sufficient opposition, so that it may fulfill its weighty duty of safeguarding the nation, society, and its political discourse from the far-reaching, baleful consequences that emanate from chatbot pronouncements and the impending dangers they pose.
American companies hold dominion in the realm of chatbots, a dominion that is challenged by Chinese and other international corporations. Recent months have witnessed an acceleration in the chatbot race. Saudi Arabia, too, hath launched its own chatbot, Rayyan. Rayyan is merely a market analyst, yet the greatest concern surrounding the multitude of chatbots soon to emerge is that their creators may imbue them with their own predilections and aversions. This may skew their responses or decisions. Since Grok hath demonstrated that chatbots do not merely regurgitate rote answers, but engage in cogitation and commentary, they may sway public opinion. Thus, it is imperative that their employment be marked by responsibility and circumspection. Should uncontrolled chatbots of a similar ilk proliferate, governments shall find themselves in perpetual crisis, and the sowing of hatred and animosity within India’s diverse society will become commonplace. Recently, discussions have taken place regarding the creation of a specific LLM (Long Language Model) for the Indian Army, akin to a chatbot, yet solely for military purposes. The Army hath declared that it requires an LLM with zero bias and zero guardrails, meaning that it desires an uninhibited, unadulterated, and forthright opinion. Any chatbot that is trained with all data of the internet then curated and filtered behind sturdy guardrails will give carefully worded, circuitous answers. In contrast, a bot where filters and guardrails are deliberately weakened will be more controversially opinionated. Grok, more or less, is the latter.
It is possible that Grok’s cutting, witty, and audacious pronouncements may, at present, appear courageous, truthful, and amusing; however, a careful contemplation of this technological landscape, looking toward the future, may prove disconcerting. If such chatbots are not governed, they shall breed anarchy, which shall prove deleterious not only to governments but also to the nation, society, and its people. Therefore, we must needs recall the Prime Minister’s words, that the governance and associated standards of AI-generated technological measures must be established in such a manner that they sustain our shared values, mitigate risks, and foster mutual trust. This necessitates concerted global efforts. The case of Grok stands in stark opposition to this ideal; thus, stringent action against X is vital, regardless of the fact that India’s legal framework may not yet be fully equipped for such an endeavor. Still, we must secure that artificial intelligence be employed to strengthen democracy, and not to undermine it. It is hoped that when the native chatbot doth arrive in September, it shall be declared the nation’s sole official chatbot, and all responses from others shall be deemed invalid by the government.