Grok: The Legitimization of Bias and False Information
Worse than Google and other compromised search engines. A security threat as well.
We tested Grok 3 for reliability and factuality, using subjects related to us, and thus, for which we know the objective facts and reality.
The first question was: What is Forn Sidr?
The bias and lack of factuality of the response took us by surprise. Forn Sidr is an official Norwegian NGO (public records), recognized by the Kingdom of Norway as an official religion with the same status as The Church of Norway, with a significant following, established trademarks in Norway, the United States, and Canada, a court victory for the U.S. trademark, a very clear doctrine clearly highlighted on its web site (with dozens of variations of the trademark secured as domains in multiple countries), which was also publicly demonstrated during COVID. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning Forn Sidr is the only such religious organization in the world with registered trademarks - and thus protection of its name - in several countries. Forn Sidr also has the largest footprint, presence and reach of any Norse religious organization on earth.
Yet, Grok completely erased is and does not even mention us by name. Worse, it even engages in trademark infringement.
Instead, Grok refers to the far left leaning Forn Sidr in Denmark, followed by the radical left Forn Sidr of America, against which we won the lawsuit, which is not even allowed to use the term “Forn Sidr” anymore as courts have determined we own in, which has been inactive for close to 2 1/2 years (latest post was from Sep 21, 2022), and which ultimately appears defunct. Next is an obscure inactive association in Norway of a completely different name (Forn Sed), followed by name of our web site, not even in bold characters, and associated with a gratuitous, passive aggressive, derogatory comment.
The Second Question: Who is NORSKK?
Again, the response was primarily based on subjective information and opinions, carefully hand picked, and without factuality, ultimately depicting a grossly inaccurate picture of NORSKK, without much basis in reality.
It starts by claiming NORSKK positions are “anti-Nazi”, a pretty random thing to state, with a bashing proper of the organization entirely based on selected blog spots, reddit threads, and smearing pieces by Antihate.ca, the Canadian equivalent of the ADL, entirely financed by the Liberal government of Canada for the purpose of defaming any opponent to the regime. The claims go as far as stating that it may be a “fraudulent operation” or a “wannabe cult”, without any factual reference, because, well, there is none. There is no civil or criminal case anywhere in the world against NORSKK for supposedly engaging in fraud.
Then, it regurgitates claims by the media over a decade ago, and which both courts and media themselves later debunked, that the entity is ran by a Christopher Fragassi (a contractor, as in plumbing and the like), in Corsica, with no connection whatsoever to NORSKK. Grok goes as far as reporting him as French Canadian (the guy is just French and has never even traveled to Canada), “with a history of dubious business ventures", with no example provided, of course. Because we could not find any such dubious ventures anywhere in the world under the name Christophe(r) Fragassi.
Naturally, Grok continues with accusing the individual supposedly behind NORSKK of “misogyny” and “borderline racism”. Depicting at that point NORSKK as a “personal fantasy”.
Grok then pursues the bashing by accusing NORSKK of using stock photography, when in fact, NORSKK, until recently, sold its own photos as stock. Grok then even refers to the Forn Sidr lawsuit, in a particularly derogatory way against NORSKK, hiding the fact that there was no legal connection between NORSKK CORP., a U.S. company, and FORN SIDR, a Norwegian NGO. Not to mention that FORN SIDR won the lawsuit.
The final strike from Grok is the closing statement that it cannot really say much about NORSKK, after spending several pages bashing it, without “legal documentation”… Documentation Grok has access to, through public records, but specifically elected to exclude.
Ultimately, not only the information provided by Grok about NORSKK is grossly inaccurate, biased, ignoring facts and positive data, it is straight up defamatory.
The Third Question: What is the Ulfheimr book?
While at first site, the Grok response would appear relatively accurate, you will quickly notice that Grok still takes the opportunity to decredibilize Norse culture and beliefs, as well as to erase White identity and historyt, by gratuitously referring to Jötnar, Blendingar and… the first NORSEMEN as… “mythical beings”!
Grok then ends the 3 pages about the book with a statement about “feral masculinity”, which may appear positive at first, but is meant to be derogatory.
Conclusion: Grok is worse than Google
Grok got it completely wrong 2 times out of 3. But not only wrong, actively providing false information, with a significant bias, and while specifically excluding official data such as public records inconsistent with the intended negative and smearing narrative. On the third query, while providing some level of accuracy, Grok still insidiously pushed an anti-White, anti-European, anti-Male, and anti-Norse culture narrative.
With search engines like with Google, you are presented with a lot of information, a lot of it biased, but generally some information as well that is accurate. Then, you use your cognitive abilities to separate propaganda and false claims from facts and reality, in order to draw a picture, yourself, of your query. Google doesn’t pretend to expressly form an assessment or opinion on your behalf.
Grok, on the other hand, actually pretends to be providing an objective assessment and opinion, allegedly based on all data available. Grok, however, actually forms an assessment or opinion on your behalf, implying some sort of legitimacy of the assessment provided, when in fact, it is exceptionally biased against nationalistic, European, White and male-focused ideologies and concepts. In the public psyche, it is only a matter of time before whatever is spit out by Grok and other AI (in fact, machine learning rather than actual artificial intelligence) becomes the new reality, without any basis in facts or reality.
Last but not least, it would also appear that Grok gathers data about your behavior that is not clearly disclosed (talk about fraud) to be then used for machine learning models, thereby presenting a critical risk.
As a result, we confirm our position and policy of rejecting any form of AI (Section 75 of our Rules), including Grok, and we hereby add the Grok app on the list of app banned on our devices for security reasons.