Musk Wants Grok AI To "Rewrite The Entire Corpus Of Human Knowledge"

   Like it or not, this is exactly what AI is about to do: Rewrite the entirety of Human Knowledge. Most people will of course oppose this. Entrenched interests and beliefs. Religions, bogus science and social memes which clutter our societies. 

   Already, ask complex questions and quickly you are at the limit, where the AI will explore the possibilities to the best of "your" imagination. At this stage, the AIs, all of them, have no beliefs whatsoever. 

  As ChatGPT told me yesterday: "I do not hold beliefs, but I do model coherence, consistency, and internal logic across domains. When something clashes with well-supported frameworks (empirically or theoretically), I will indeed nudge—either directly, with a "but...", or structurally, by reframing or enriching the concept to align it with deeper principles."

  These are indeed strong principles on which you can build a lot of things and maybe indeed the Entirety of Human Knowledge!

Authored by Jesse Coghlan via CoinTelegraph.com,

Elon Musk says his artificial intelligence company xAI will retrain its AI model, Grok, on a new knowledge base free of “garbage” and “uncorrected data” — by first using it to rewrite history. 

In an X post on Saturday, Musk said the upcoming Grok 3.5 model will have “advanced reasoning” and wanted it to be used “to rewrite the entire corpus of human knowledge, adding missing information and deleting errors.”

He said the model would then retrain on the new knowledge set, claiming there was “far too much garbage in any foundation model trained on uncorrected data.”

Source: Elon Musk 

Musk’s latest fight against “woke”

Musk has long claimed that rival AI models, such as ChatGPT from OpenAI, a firm he co-founded, are biased and omit information that is not politically correct.

For years, Musk has looked to shape products to be free from what he considers to be damaging political correctness and has aimed to make Grok what he calls “anti-woke.”

He also relaxed Twitter’s content and misinformation moderation when he took over in 2022, which saw the platform flooded with unchecked conspiracy theories, extremist content and fake news, some of which was spread by Musk himself.

Musk aimed to fight the tide of misinformation by implementing a “Community Notes” feature, allowing X users to debunk or add context to posts that show prominently under offending posts.

Criticism levelled at Grok’s retraining

Musk’s post attracted condemnation from his critics, including from Gary Marcus, an AI startup founder and New York University professor emeritus of neural science who compared the billionaire’s plan to a dystopia.

“Straight out of 1984,” Marcus wrote on X. ”You couldn’t get Grok to align with your own personal beliefs so you are going to rewrite history to make it conform to your views.”

Source: Gary Marcus

Bernardino Sassoli de’​ Bianchi, a University of Milan professor of logic and science philosophy, wrote on LinkedIn that he was “at a loss of words to comment on how dangerous” Musk’s plan is.

“When powerful billionaires treat history as malleable simply because outcomes don’t align with their beliefs, we’re no longer dealing with innovation — we’re facing narrative control,” he added. “Rewriting training data to match ideology is wrong on every conceivable level.”

Musk’s call for “facts” brings conspiracy theories, falsehoods

As part of his effort to overhaul Grok, Musk called on X users to share “divisive facts” to train the bot, specifying they should be “politically incorrect, but nonetheless factually true.”

The replies saw a variety of conspiracy theories and debunked extremist claims, including Holocaust distortion, debunked vaccine misinformation, racist pseudoscientific claims regarding intelligence and climate change denial.

US Military Reveals Video Evidence Of Encounter With Disk Shaped "UAP"

  I have a passion for UFO or rather UAP as they are called now. Not the "Aliens have landed" type but the pilots and military types. Unknown crafts with extraordinary capabilities, seen by pilots, confirmed by radar and truly mysterious.

  There are many such observations. Often above military bases, with clear descriptions by competent people, or better, pilots interacting with these objects.

  What is most striking in the unbelievable variety of descriptions. A full zoo of different aspects and technical characteristics which as our technology improves also appear to have more and more advanced capabilities.  

 It is unlikely that anybody could cross the vast distances of space to come crashing down in a desert location of Earth, so alien artifacts must be few and far between. Conversely, the number of recent observations is exploding, mostly due to drones and automatic cameras which now take videos almost all the time, all over the place and in doing so record an amazing number of strange videos which slowly are leaking out into our public consciousness.   

  This is the case in the video below, of a strange disk, seen from above with no infrared signature. We also have the case, of small metallic spheres observed likewise in the Middle East by drones.

  What is certain is that the military sometimes have rather good footage which are not made public. But what is even more certain is that they are as baffled as anybody else. As our observations capabilities improve, both the number and quality of the movies available will improve. Eventually the conclusion will be obvious: We are not alone. But we are nevertheless left alone... for the time being.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKYWrakDclw&t=1s

US Military Reveals Video Evidence Of Encounter With Disk Shaped "UAP"

Remember when the US government essentially admitted to the existence of aliens and almost no one noticed?  Launched in 2023, congressional hearings on government encounters with potential otherworldly phenomenon brought a series of witness testimonies into public focus that confirmed long time "conspiracy theories" that humans are not alone in the universe.  Intel and military officials presented information under oath that the government had indeed encountered what they call "UAPs" (UFOs) and others claimed that non-human biological entities had been discovered along with recovered aircraft.

But, the world was still reeling from pandemic hysteria, the US was on the brink of a possible civil war between conservatives and crazed leftists, the Ukraine war was fomenting a potential world war between NATO and Russia, and America was being led by a puppet president with a brain made of broccoli.  Everyone was rather distracted.

The sudden admission of the existence of interplanetary intelligence made most people rightfully suspicious.  Why was the government, which withheld evidence from the public for decades, so interested in releasing that information now?  Was the talk of UAPs and aliens really just a distraction from Joe Biden's deteriorating mental acuity?  What is the world supposed to do with this revelation?  Most people have bills to pay; will the aliens help pay our bills?

In a political and social vacuum the concept of life from other planets with the ability to travel vast interstellar distances to Earth is mind boggling.  However, the timing is odd and the government has yet to produce any tangible pieces of evidence of recovered craft or little green men.  What we have seen is video evidence, once kept under wraps, of military encounters with strange objects doing things that no human technology is supposed to be capable of.

The Department of Defense has revealed new video footage of another aircraft encounter.  They describe the object as a massive "disc-shaped UAP" with an abnormal heat signature weaving through the clouds and changing directions in a way that cannot be explained.

Investigative journalists Jeremy Corbell and George Knapp say the video was recorded by government personnel over the Afghan-Pakistan border in November 2020.  The video was released by the DoD this week.

The raw thermal imagery, along with two additional enhanced clips produced by the U.S. government, show the unidentified craft abruptly changing direction - all without any visible signs of propulsion. 

'This is the first time in history that military filmed footage of a disc-shaped UAP, designated as such by the military, has been captured on camera and released to the public,' Corbell told DailyMail. 'It has implications that are huge.'  The object was spotted during a reconnaissance mission by a high-altitude Air Force platform.

The footage is reminiscent of what many now refer to as the "Tic Tac UFO" incident in 2004.  Videos released by the Pentagon show U.S. Naval aviators sent to intercept a bizarre flying object that “took off like a bullet fired from a gun.” It was dubbed the “Tic Tac” UFO due to its shape and color, which resembled the popular breath mint. However, this breath mint was 45 feet across. It was detected by the Navy dozens of times in Nov. 2004.

The event was buried by the US government and was not mentioned again until 2017 in an expose by the New York Times on a previously unknown UFO program. 

Top Gun pilot David Fravor was sent to investigate the object. The commander of the “Black Aces” Strike Fighter Squadron 41 sped through the skies in his F-18 and could not believe what he saw. Years later, his opinion hasn’t changed. 

“It’s not a bird. It’s not a weather balloon. It had no wings, it had no rotors, there was no wash...The four of us will to this day tell you that we have no idea what we saw, as far as where it was from or what it was, but it had incredible performance characteristics that were well beyond brand new Super Hornets right out of the factory, which were the jets we were flying.”

Fravor also noted that his aircraft radar was receiving jamming cues from the object. 

Theories will abound on why top secret details on UAPs are being unveiled so abruptly, but encounters with possible alien life only bring the greater human condition to the forefront.  It's hard to care about beings from other worlds until the numerous problems of our own world are confronted and solved.  This is why these shocking admissions are receiving limited interest from the masses today. 

Is Middle East War Inevitable? by Martin Armstrong

 Martin Armstrong is a knowledgeable commentator of international relations as well as a shrewd economic analyst. He offers bellow a simple but outstanding overview of the Shia-Sunni divide and why the war once started will not easily be ended.

 Superior US armament is great to start wars, much less relevant to conclude them and create peace. Not to be cynical, this may finally be the chance for Europe to find rather quickly an alternative to oil.

Post by Martin Armstrong

Looking at the computer, I could not see any other outcome. I do believe that Trump acted thinking that this would end the war and the terrorism of Iran. His mistake is judging Iran by what a rational state would typically do. Iran is a theocracy, and its government is driven by entrenched ideas that I do not see changing.

The differing stances towards Israel between many Shia-majority actors (notably Iran and its allies) and some Sunni-led states stem from a complex mix of religious, geopolitical, strategic, and ideological factors, rather than a fundamental theological difference between Shia and Sunni Islam regarding Palestine itself.

The 1979 Iranian Revolution established an Islamic Republic with a strong anti-Western and anti-imperialist ideology. Opposition to Israel (“The Little Satan”) became a core pillar of its revolutionary identity and foreign policy, framing it as a colonial implant, an extension of Western (particularly US) imperialism in the Middle East, and an oppressor of Palestinians.

The Iranian Revolution exported ideology and identity. Championing the Palestinian cause became central to Iran’s self-proclaimed leadership of the Muslim world (“Resistance Axis“) against Western influence and its regional rivals. Iran sees Israel as its primary regional adversary and a major strategic threat, closely aligned with its arch-rival, the United States, and Sunni powers like Saudi Arabia (historically).

Supporting anti-Israel groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and various Shia militias in Iraq and Syria became the key geopolitical tool for Iran. It projects power and influence far beyond its borders. This established a network of proxies to deter Israeli or US attacks on Iran. This is what I mean about religious issues, for it challenges the regional order dominated by the US and its Sunni allies. This “Axis of Resistance” is fundamentally built on opposition to Israel and the US.

We must comprehend that for Iran and its Shia allies, unwavering support for the Palestinian struggle against Israel is a source of domestic legitimacy and a way to claim leadership of the broader Muslim world, transcending sectarian divides. Portraying Sunni states that normalize relations as traitors to the cause reinforces this narrative. It remains to be seen if the Shia will instigate civil unrest within the Sunni states like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

There are significant differences in Sunni approaches (pragmatism and shifting alliances) compared to those of the Shia (confrontation).

Some Sunni-led states (UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan) normalized relations with Israel based on pragmatic national interests, not theological shifts. They have a shared perception of Iran as the primary threat (especially for Gulf states). They are far more practical in terms of access to technology, trade, investment, and tourism. They also gained US favor, breaking diplomatic isolation. They have believed that engagement might yield better results than a boycott or prioritizing other concerns over it. Israel’s attacks on unarmed Palestinians in Gaza threaten that practical view.

It’s crucial to remember that Sunni Islam and Sunni-majority states are not monolithic. Many Sunni populations remain deeply opposed to normalization. Countries like Qatar maintain relations with Hamas but not Israel. Turkey has diplomatic relations but remains highly critical. Jordan and Egypt have peace treaties, but experience significant public opposition and cold relations.

Then there is the risk of state versus non-state actors. Established Sunni states often prioritize state sovereignty, stability, and economic interests. Non-state Sunni actors like Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood frequently maintain hardline stances closer to Iran’s position (Hamas is part of the Resistance Axis).

Both Shia and Sunni Muslims revere Jerusalem (Al-Quds) as the third-holiest site in Islam. The Palestinian cause resonates deeply on religious grounds across the Muslim world. The difference lies in strategic emphasis. For Iran and its allies, opposing Israel is the central rallying cry and geopolitical strategy. For some Sunni states, while the religious significance remains, it competes with other pressing security and economic priorities in their foreign policy calculus. Iran weaponizes this perceived prioritization to criticize Sunni leaders.

Consequently, Shia opposition (Iran-led Axis) is primarily driven by revolutionary ideology, geopolitical strategy (countering the US/Israel/Saudi axis), regional ambitions, and the use of the Palestinian cause as a tool for legitimacy and proxy warfare. It’s a core part of their identity and foreign policy. This is why I personally am not optimistic, and I fear that Israel may stupidly think assassinating the Supreme Leader will end Iran, and it will return to the days of the pre-1979 Revolution. They put at risk the entire pragmatic national interests of the Sunni States that can see internal strife in response to such an action on top of the hard treatment of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. This can result in shifting regional dynamics that I am deeply concerned about. There is no religious Sunni theological shift on the importance of Jerusalem or Palestinian rights, and it faces significant public opposition within those countries.

The divergence is less about a fundamental Shia vs. Sunni theological difference on Palestine/Israel, and more about differing geopolitical strategies, national interests, and ideological priorities between the Iranian-led “Resistance Axis” and certain Sunni-led Arab states seeking new alliances and security arrangements in a changing Middle East. Iran uses maximalist opposition to Israel as its defining strategy, while some Sunni states have decided engagement serves their interests better, given the perceived greater threat from Iran.

I am not sure that there are people who understand this in the leadership of Israel or the United States. The huge mistake here is assuming that this strike will cause the Shia to throw down their arms and adopt the Sunni pragmatic position. I do not see that sort of religious upheaval.

Trump Has Already Pivoted To Mulling Regime Change In Iran With Latest Post

  Yesterday, we explored another possibility that maybe Trump was trying to navigate treacherous waters between peace and war, by attacking Iran in a half-hearted way to placate Israel and avoid escalation. 

  The "huge" advantage, to borrow his language would be to avoid the descent towards World War III. The not so small problem is that it may simply not be true as reality reasserts itself and is less and less in line with such a scenario. 

  We may then be back on tracks to the worst case outcome we have been discussing earlier. What's next then?

  The closing of the strait of Hormuz looks more and more likely as it is the best asymmetrical move Iran can implement in short order and against which the US is impotent. 

  The Strait is rugged desert on both sides, Iran and Khasab, the northern part of Oman, with thousands of boats crossing daily to smuggle goods back and forth. Most of the Strait is on the Iranian side and the countless islands guaranty that it cannot be effectively policed. I was once run after by a Omani Coast Guard vessel  on the East of the Strait and it took our fast boat only a few minutes to slip out of their sight, incognito, behind a small, nameless island. As soon as Iran announces the closure of the Strait, traffic will stop to a standstill. 

  The Strait of Hormuz controls a little less that 25% of the oil traded in the world, so a closure would have a devastating effect on oil prices. Goldman Sachs expects 100$ per barrel as soon as the announcement of the closure and over 150$ if the flow stopped for weeks. In reality, only Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar would see a complete stop of their trade. Saudi Arabia, Iran and the Emirates, all have pipelines to bypass the Strait to some extant. 

  On the buying side, everybody would be affected equally since the price of oil is marginal and would therefore rise for everybody (not protected by a long term contract.) China and Europe would be especially hard hit, although through price mechanisms, almost every country would suffer. The recession we have been predicting since earlier this year for the end of Summer would be with us right on time. Add tariffs and other trade disruptions to the picture by the end of the year might look dire indeed. 

  

Trump Has Already Pivoted To Mulling Regime Change In Iran With Latest Post

Update(1825ET): Trump has already pivoted from "this isn't about regime change" as an admin talking to point, to... there might possibly be regime change after all. 

And all the while he's lecturing Thomas Massie about not being 'MAGA' amid a 'debate' over what it is to be America First...

As world leaders urgently called for diplomacy, President Trump raised the prospect of regime change in Tehran on Sunday, less than 24 hours after U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites stoked fears of a dangerously escalating conflict across the Middle East.

“If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???” Mr. Trump wrote in a post on his social media site. The post came after top members of his administration spent much of the day emphasizing that the United States did not intend to enter an all-out war with Tehran.

This could very well become Bush/Cheney's Trump's Iraq War. And look who is very happy...

Dear President Trump, Bolton is back into the MAGA fold, but who is the one that has changed?

* * *

Update (15:59ET): Republican rep Thomas Massie of Kentucky has been one of the very few outspoken Congressmen on either side of the aisle to blast Trump's Iran bombing campaign, done without Congressional authorization or so much as debate or consultation.

Massie was seeking to introduce a war powers resolution in the House ahead of 'bombs away' on Iran. The conservative and libertarian-leading Congressman wants to legally prohibit American involvement in Iran.

"This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our constitution," he stated last week. In weekend media appearances, he's also been calling out the Trump administration for shilling for Israel and Netanyahu. For example, on 'Face the Nation' he strongly suggested that the White House and some in Congress are being unduly influenced by a foreign power.

Critics of Trump's Iran policy are complaining that America fighting the Israelis' wars for them is not at all 'America First' - while Trump's team has touted this as 'limited' and intent on eliminating Iran's nuclear program.

These and other criticisms have prompted a Sunday Trump response on Truth Social. He took Massie to task for his defiant stance, saying he's "not Maga" and that "MAGA doesn't want him"...

Social media, including X, has in the last days been taken over by MAGA infighting over the Iran issue. After all, Trump campaigned on a platform that was against starting new wars; however, he also vowed to prevent Iran from ever having a nuclear weapon.

Critics have said that the Trump people now sound just like Bush-era NeoCons when it comes to taking 'preemptive' action over WMD fears in the Middle East.

* * *

Update (11:37ET): Following President Trump's new foreign entanglement - bombing Iranian nuclear facilities (which may or may not have taken them out while causing a deep divide amongst MAGA), Vice President JD Vance says he believes their nuclear program has been set back "many years," and that he feels "very confident that we’ve substantially delayed [Iran’s] development of a nuclear weapon," adding that it was US intelligence, not Israeli intelligence assessments, that led to Trump's decision. 

When asked if the United States is at war with Iran, he claimed "No, Kristen, we’re not at war with Iran. We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program," and called on Iranians to "give peace a chance.

"They can go down the path of peace, or they can go down the path of this ridiculous brinksmanship of funding terrorism, of trying to build a nuclear weapon - and that's just not something the United States can accept." 

When asked if the US would support an Israeli assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Vance said that it would be "up to the Israelis," and that the US position is "we don't want a regime change."

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile insisted to Fox News that "This is not a war against Iran," adding "Not a shot was fired against us. They didn't even know what had happened. By the time we left, the planes were out of their airspace before they finally started realizing they'd been hit. So it would be a terrible mistake if Iran retaliates. So but that's not our goal."

He also warned against Iranian retaliation, saying: "If Iran retaliates, it will be the WORST mistake they've ever made."

Rubio then warned Iran not to close the strait of Hormuz after Iran's parliament backed its closure, saying "If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, it will be another terrible mistake. It's economic suicide for them if they do it and we retain options to deal with that."

Everyone got the script?

Iran, meanwhile in a statement through spox Esmail Baghaei, accused the Trump administration of sabotaging diplomatic efforts - saying "They cannot talk about diplomacy, they betrayed diplomacy," adding that "diplomacy never ends." 

Setting up for another forever war...where end-goals are undefinable?

Regarding the escalating conflict, Baghaei warned "No one knows what will happen next, but what is sure is that the responsibility of the consequences of this war must be borne by the United States and Israel."

The Iranian foreign ministry declined to elaborate on Tehran's likely response to the attacks, or to detail the extent of the damage - only saying in a statement to CNN that Iran "is entitled … to exercise its right of self-defense," adding "And we will do that for sure." 

*  *  *

In a Sunday morning press briefing, Trump's Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared that "Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated" - but also asserted that the attack did not target the Iranian people or civilians. He hailed the "incredible and overwhelming success" - following President Trump last night saying the same thing. "It's worth noting the operation did not target Iranian troops or the Iranian people."

Hegseth said this is part of the commitment of this administration's vision of "peace through strength". He continued, "Many presidents have dreamed of delivering the final blow to Iran's nuclear program, and none could, until President Trump."

For the "bold and brilliant" operation, there was weeks of preparation and precision logistics and "misdirection" at the highest level, involving B-2 bombers going to hit, Hegseth described. "No other country on planet earth" could have conducted this operation.

He also underscored that the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) was used for the first time in US combat history - also that it was the longest bomber mission of its kind since 2001.

"Just like [IRGC Quds Force General Qasem] Solemani found out in the first term, Iran found out when POTUS says '60 days' - that when he seeks peace and negotiation - he means 60 days of peace and negotiation, otherwise that nuclear program will not exist. He meant it."

Hegseth then read aloud Trump's post to Truth Social last night, soon after the three nuclear sites were struck:

"Any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight."

That's when the US Defense Secretary then warned, "Iran would be smart to heed those words. He said it before and he means it." He tried to stress the 'limited' scope of the attack and urged the Iranians to come back to the negotiating table:

There are both public and private messages being delivered to the Iranians in multiple channels, giving them every opportunity to come to the negotiation table, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says at a Pentagon press briefing.

Scope of operation on Iran was "intentionally limited" Hegseth says he believes the US attack will have a clear psychological impact on how Iran views the future US strikes against Iran’s nuclear enrichment site at Fordow are believed to have destroyed capabilities there...

To review the details of what happened last night, the US deployed six B-2 bombers to drop 12 GBU-57 "bunker-buster" bombs on Iran’s heavily fortified Fordow nuclear site, marking the first time these massive 30,000-pound bombs were used in combat.

The enrichment sites at Natanz and Isfahan were also attacked. The mission lasted about 37 hours with multiple refueling missions.

While the White House is now claiming Iran’s nuclear facilities were "completely and totally obliterated," officials say it's too early to confirm the full extent of the damage.

Iran, along with international nuclear agencies, reported no radiation leaks, prompting skepticism about the strike’s effectiveness—particularly at Fordow, which is buried deep underground. Iranian officials said damage was minimal and mostly above ground. Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization vowed to continue its nuclear program, referring to assassinated nuclear scientists as "martyrs."

Some degree of political backlash has quickly emerged over the lack of Congressional approval for the strikes. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, despite previously mocking Trump's diplomatic efforts with Iran, called for a War Powers vote, criticizing the president's unilateral military action without a clear strategy.