Soon after US President Joe Biden announced he was ending his bid for re-election, misinformation started spreading online about whether a new candidate could take the president’s place.
Screenshots that claimed a new candidate could not be added to ballots in nine states moved quickly around Twitter, now X, racking up millions of views. The Minnesota secretary of state’s office began getting requests for fact-checks of these posts, which were flat-out wrong — ballot deadlines had not passed, giving US Vice President Kamala Harris plenty of time to have her name added to ballots.
The source of the misinformation: X’s chatbot, Grok. When users asked the artificial intelligence (AI) tool whether a new candidate still had time to be added to ballots, Grok gave the incorrect answer.
Finding the source — and working to correct it — served as a test case of how election officials and AI companies would interact during this year’s US presidential election amid fears that AI could mislead or distract voters. It showed the role Grok, specifically, could play in the election, as a chatbot with fewer guardrails to prevent the generating of more inflammatory content.
A group of secretaries of state and the organization that represents them, the National Association of Secretaries of State, contacted Grok and X to flag the misinformation.
The company did not work to correct it immediately, instead giving the equivalent of a shoulder shrug, Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon said.
“And that struck, I think it’s fair to say all of us, as really the wrong response,” he said.
Thankfully, this wrong answer was relatively low-stakes: It would not have prevented people from casting a ballot. However, the secretaries took a strong position quickly, because of what could come next.
“In our minds, we thought, well, what if the next time Grok makes a mistake, it is higher stakes?” Simon said. “What if the next time the answer it gets wrong is, can I vote, where do I vote … what are the hours, or can I vote absentee? So this was alarming to us.”
Especially troubling was the fact that the social media platform itself was spreading false information, rather than users spreading misinformation using the platform.
The secretaries took their effort public. Five of the nine secretaries in the group signed on to a public letter to the platform and its owner, Elon Musk. The letter called on X to have its chatbot take a similar position as other chatbot tools, such as ChatGPT, and direct users who ask election-related questions to a trusted non-partisan voting information Web site, CanIVote.org.
The effort worked. Grok now directs users to a different Web site, vote.gov, when asked about elections.
“We look forward to maintaining open lines of communication this election season and stand ready to respond to any additional concerns you may have,” X’s global government affairs head Wifredo Fernandez wrote to the secretaries, according to a copy of the letter obtained by the Guardian.
It was a victory for the secretaries and for stalling election misinformation — and a lesson in how to respond when AI-based tools fall short.
Calling out the misinformation early and often can help amplify the message, give it more credibility and force a response, Simon said.
While he was “deeply disappointed” in the company’s initial response, Simon said: “I want to give kudos and credit words, too, and it is due here. This is a large company, with global reach, and they decided to do the right and responsible thing, and I do commend them for that. I just hope that they keep it up. We’re going to continue monitoring.”
Musk has described Grok as an “anti-woke” chatbot that gives “spicy” answers often loaded with snark.
Musk is “against centralized control to whatever degree he can possibly do that,” said Lucas Hansen, cofounder of CivAI, a non-profit that warns of the dangers of AI.
This philosophical belief puts Grok at a disadvantage for preventing misinformation, as does another feature of the tool: Grok brings in top tweets to inform its responses, which can affect its accuracy, Hansen said.
Grok requires a paid subscription, but holds the potential for widespread usage since it is built into a social media platform, Hansen added.
While it might give incorrect answers in chat, the images it creates could also further inflame partisan divides. The images can be outlandish: a Nazi Mickey Mouse, former US president Donald Trump flying a plane into the World Trade Center or Harris in a communist uniform.
Grok can make “convincing” images that could mislead people, one study by the Center for Countering Digital Hate said, citing images it prompted the bot to create of Harris doing drugs and Trump sick in bed, the Independent reported.
The news outlet al-Jazeera wrote in a recent investigation that it was able to create “lifelike images” of Harris with a knife at a grocery store and Trump “shaking hands with white nationalists on the White House lawn.”
“Now any random person can create something that’s substantially more inflammatory than they previously could,” Hansen said.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS