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 response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS