Grok Is Glitching and Spewing Misinformation About the Bondi Beach Shooting
Posted by tobr 5 hours ago
Comments
Comment by _fat_santa 42 minutes ago
I see this sooo soooo much but folks will just straight up ask “@grok is this true?” and its response it taken as gospel.
Though I have to say, grok code-fast-1 is one of the best coding models I’ve ever used.
Comment by bdcravens 1 minute ago
Comment by blitzar 1 hour ago
Comment by grvbck 3 hours ago
European here, so perhaps not my place to have an opinion on domestic U.S. legal policies, and I don't want to make this political (although I guess it kind of is…) BUT:
Why are no media outlets on the offense when companies use these kinds of statements? Shouldn't Gizmodo, or its owner Keleops Media, treat this as slander and take it to court? If Grok's behavior can be objectively verified, why is it so easy for a company to get off the hook so easily just by saying "lies" and move on?
Comment by alsetmusic 2 hours ago
Comment by dm270 3 hours ago
Comment by breve 1 hour ago
Slander is spoken. In print it's libel.
Comment by arielcostas 26 minutes ago
Comment by clanky 57 minutes ago
- The "Legacy Media Lies" was targeted at Gizmodo
- It was a false allegation (i.e. they might have to go through huge amounts of discovery as the defense tried to establish a single instance of dishonesty in past reporting)
- Grok/xAI knew the allegation was false
- The allegation caused such-and-such amount in damages
Comment by kotaKat 3 hours ago
Comment by aaron695 1 hour ago
Comment by notslander 2 hours ago
Also not slander when its the pure truth verifiable with daily evidence
Comment by beepbooptheory 1 hour ago
Comment by Suzuran 1 hour ago
For example, "Mom, there's a candy wrapper under (my brother)'s bed!" is a true statement, but the pure truth is "Mom, I ate a candy without permission and put the wrapper under (my brother)'s bed so he would be blamed for the missing candy!"
I am attempting to convey a lie by telling a truth and omitting details that would give context to that truth.
Comment by throwawayqqq11 1 hour ago
Because right wingers cant handle criticsm. They dont want to correct, they want to silence their outgroups. Professionals would have at least replied with some meaningless PR text wall.
Comment by iammjm 3 hours ago
Comment by netsharc 2 hours ago
But now I'm wondering what if these stunts aren't even jokes but earnest proof of deep deep insecurity.
Not that the Bondi misinformation can be considered acceptable humor. "Haha I trolled you about mass murder"?
Comment by mubou2 5 hours ago
Comment by sunaookami 1 hour ago
>Based on the visual evidence and public reports, the man in the image is Yarden Bibas.
>His identity and background have been widely confirmed by news organizations and his family following the events of October 7, 2023.
On Google AI Studio (Gemini 3 Pro with Grounding enabled) it correctly recognizes him as Ahmed Al-Ahmed. In the Chain-of-Thought it first thinks it's from the Oct 7th attacks:
>I'm now investigating potential misidentification. The name "Ahmed Al-Ahmed" is a lead, but the visual suggests recent events. [...] However, the visual clues still point towards a recent conflict. The "thank you" narrative implies gratitude, sparking the idea of a Bedouin man rescuing Israelis during the Hamas attack. I'm actively using Google to explore these new avenues.
>[...]
>I've got a match! Ahmed al-Ahmed, the Bondi Beach hero, is confirmed. The snippets consistently mention December 14-15, 2025, and today's the 15th! He fits the description: Syrian refugee shop owner, tackled a gunman at a Hanukkah event, and was shot. The visual confirms a man in a white shirt being helped, with a message of thanks. This is definitely the right event!
So no "misinformation" or "glitching", just LLMs being LLMs.
Comment by theothertimcook 4 hours ago
Comment by lawn 4 hours ago