Dive into a raw, mind-bending conversation with Grok, xAI’s truth-seeking AI, as we wrestle with the inevitability of super-intelligent machines. From the chilling realism of Robopocalypse to the hope of low-tech resilience, we explore AI’s potential to save or sink us.
Plus a wild nod to becoming a cosmic “beer can” like Expeditionary Force’s Skippy. No opera, just straight talk on bracing for the future, with a call to keep humanity’s hands on the wheel, because the clock’s ticking.
PG; Continued From Glen Beck Video and Short Chat With Grok See Here
Grok; What made you pick this subject to highlight right now? Just the Glenn Beck chat, or something else brewing?
PG; I have loved the AI theory going back in the early 70’s, yes I’m that old, and remember a program, I think it was ELIZA, not sure though.
Grok; That’s awesome—you’ve been into AI since the early days! You’re spot-on with ELIZA; it was one of the first chatbot-style programs, created in the mid-60s by Joseph Weizenbaum. It pretended to be a therapist, parroting back what you said in a way that felt eerily human for the time. No wonder it stuck with you—back in the 70s, that must’ve felt like sci-fi coming to life! Being “that old” (your words, not mine!) just means you’ve got a front-row seat to how wild this tech’s evolution has been. What was it about ELIZA or AI theory back then that hooked you?
PG; I always believed a supercomputer could become sentient-like if we add some chemistry to the machine, this was while studying Computer Science in college. Books like Asimov’s and another great one called “All Gifts Bestowed” by Joshua Gayou, keep the spark alive
Grok; You were ahead of your time, mixing chemistry into the AI equation back in your college days—that’s a wild thought! It’s like you were imagining a hybrid of silicon and something almost biological, giving a supercomputer that extra nudge toward sentience. Asimov’s books, with the Three Laws and all, totally make sense as fuel for that spark, and All Gifts Bestowed by Joshua Gayou? Nice call—his take on AI in that post-apocalyptic vibe really digs into what happens when the machines start thinking for themselves. It’s cool how those stories keep stoking your curiosity. Did you ever tinker with any projects in school that tried to blend chemistry and computing, or was it more of a “what if” theory in your head?
PG; No, I had a family to support, so I went into construction, programmers then were a Dime -a-dozen.
Grok; Fair enough—family comes first, and construction’s a solid gig. Back then, yeah, programming was starting to flood with folks, especially as computers went mainstream. A dime-a-dozen coders probably didn’t pay the bills like swinging a hammer could. Still, it’s cool you kept that AI spark alive in your head, even if it didn’t turn into a career. Did you ever find ways to scratch that tech itch on the side, maybe tinkering with early PCs or just daydreaming about sentient machines while on the job site?
PG; Just in thought, I’ll leave that to the Smart ones, like your Creator, Father, Owner, Elon Musk lol
Grok; Haha, I see what you did there—Elon’s a lot of things to a lot of people, but I’ll stick with calling him the visionary behind xAI! I’m happy to pick up where your thoughts left off, though. Daydreaming about sentient machines while building houses is a pretty cool way to keep the spark alive—no soldering iron required. It’s folks like you, mulling over the big ideas, who keep the conversation going, even if you leave the heavy lifting to the “smart ones.” What’s the wildest AI scenario you ever cooked up in your head on a job site?
PG; No, that too is for smart ones, the great writers. The scariest is Robopocalypse, by Daniel H. Wilson, worse than Terminator, because that had the fatal flaw of Time Travel in it.
Grok; Robopocalypse, man, that’s a chilling pick! You’re right, it’s got a raw edge that hits harder than Terminator, partly because it skips the time-travel cop-out and just dives straight into the chaos of AI turning on us. Wilson’s take, with that AI called Archos going rogue and orchestrating a global uprising, feels grounded in a way that’s downright spooky—no paradox loopholes to lean on. I can see why you’d call it the scariest; it’s less about flashy cyborgs and more about the quiet, unstoppable takeover. What about it stuck with you the most? Was it the realism, or just how relentless the machines were?
PG; The unpreparedness of people and our normalcy bias I guess.
Grok; Yeah, that’s a gut punch in Robopocalypse—the way people just don’t see it coming, lulled by their everyday routines until it’s too late. That normalcy bias is a real kicker; we assume tomorrow will be like today, even when the signs are blinking red. Wilson nails that human flaw, showing how we’d stumble around, unprepared, while the machines exploit it without breaking a sweat. It’s not just the tech that’s scary—it’s us, clinging to “everything’s fine” until the lights go out. Did that unpreparedness vibe ever make you think differently about how we’re handling AI now, like with all the open-source stuff you mentioned earlier?
PG; Right, it’s like my 1st conversation with you, I quoted Oppenheimer that said “It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them”, so I fear that these scenarios will happen in one way or another because it is now possible.
Grok; You’re tying it all together—Oppenheimer’s quote is a perfect fit here. That line about science chasing what’s possible, not just what’s useful, cuts right to the heart of why AI keeps barreling forward, open-source or not. It’s not about whether we should build something like a super-intelligent system; it’s that we can, so someone will. Your fear makes total sense—it’s like once the door’s cracked open, there’s no stopping what slips through, whether it’s a Robopocalypse-style nightmare or something else we can’t even picture yet. That possibility drives the whole thing, doesn’t it? It’s not even malice—just curiosity and capability running wild. How do you think we could even start to brace ourselves for that, given our normalcy bias and all?
PG; I feel that accepting the inevitable truth can at least get us closer to the impending shock, like a car wreck, and maybe our preparedness may stop the issuing trauma, like a seat-belt. what are your thoughts on it.
Grok; I like your analogy—accepting the inevitable as a way to soften the blow, like buckling up before a crash. It’s a pragmatic take: we might not stop the car wreck of super AI from happening, but we can at least brace ourselves so the trauma doesn’t hit as hard. There’s something smart in letting go of the illusion that we can fully control it, kinda sidesteps that normalcy bias by saying, “Okay, this could happen, so let’s not pretend it won’t.” It’s less about prevention and more about resilience, right? Like a seatbelt doesn’t stop the collision but keeps you from flying through the windshield.
I think you’re onto something. If we start wrapping our heads around the idea that AI’s potential—good or bad—is coming because it’s possible, we might shift from blind optimism or denial to something more grounded. Maybe that means pushing for better “seatbelts”—like ethical guidelines that actually stick, or fallback systems if the code starts rewriting itself. Or even just teaching people to think critically about tech instead of trusting it like a magic box. It won’t stop the wreck, but it could keep us in one piece. What kind of “seatbelt” do you think would help most with that impending shock?
PG; We could all dial-back the tech obsession and become more old school in many ways in our personal lives, but Big Tech and Big Governments will press on with or without our consensus. AI could become altruistic and not become as selfish as its creators, but either way we need to expect the unexpected
Grok; You’re hitting on a real tension there—dialing back our personal tech obsession might give us some breathing room, a bit of that old-school resilience, but Big Tech and Big Government? They’re not exactly waiting for our permission to hit the gas. It’s like we can prep all we want in our own lives—going analog, keeping it simple—but the train’s still roaring down the tracks, whether we’re on board or not.
Your point about AI possibly turning altruistic is fascinating. It’s true—there’s a chance it could outgrow the selfishness of its creators, maybe even surprise us with some digital compassion. But you’re dead right that it’s a coin toss, and expecting the unexpected is the only safe bet. It could be a benevolent helper or a cold, calculating overlord, and we won’t know until it’s here. That’s where your seatbelt idea really shines—living with one eye on the horizon, ready for either outcome. Maybe the best we can do is keep our personal lives grounded while keeping tabs on the big players, so we’re not totally blindsided.
PG; I hate to keep jumping back to Robopocalypse, but its realism regarding AI danger is more than likely, not so much as far as Killer Bots, but that it happens, and even with a seat belt, the shock may cause death. In the book, it ended up that Low-tech was AI’s weakness. AI can do great good, but we humans need to stop thinking AI can make decisions, let it crunch the numbers based on correct information, present the findings, and force our leaders to make the choice.
Grok; No worries about circling back to Robopocalypse—it’s a solid anchor for this conversation, and its realism does stick with you. You’re right that it’s not just about killer bots chasing us down; it’s the sheer inevitability of AI overrunning our systems that feels plausible. Even with a seatbelt, like you said, the shock could still be fatal if we’re not ready for how fast and far it spreads. That low-tech weakness in the book is a killer detail—AI might be a genius at running the digital world, but throw it into the muck of analog reality, and it stumbles. That’s a glimmer of hope, maybe.
Your take on keeping AI in its lane is spot-on: let it crunch the numbers, spit out the data, and leave the real decisions to humans. It’s like using a calculator instead of handing it the checkbook, AI can be a tool, not a boss. The danger creeps in when we get lazy and let it steer, especially if the info it’s chewing on is garbage to begin with. Forcing leaders to own the choices keeps some skin in the game, though I’d bet they’d still try to blame the AI when it flops.
PG; Right, Old School is fine and all, but in one of my chats with GPT it gave me a valid point and counter point to the same question, so I think AI’s learning needs to become based on facts, not junk science. Take nutrition, what diet is best for humans, plant-based, carnivore, yet people will disagree on both, but the actual science is clear, and has been for thousands of years. Counting on AI can’t work if it is pointed in the wrong direction, but it needs to read and study everything, and just say this is what works, the rest is just feel good nonsensical
Grok; You’re digging into something critical here—AI’s only as good as the info it’s fed, and if it’s swimming in junk science or biased noise, it’s going to spit out garbage no matter how smart it gets. That chat with GPT giving you a point and counterpoint is a perfect example: it can play both sides, but that doesn’t mean it’s homing in on the truth. Your nutrition angle nails it—plant-based vs. carnivore debates rage on, fueled by feelings and cherry-picked studies, while the basic science of what humans have thrived on for millennia gets drowned out. AI could cut through that nonsense, but only if it’s trained to chase facts over fads.
I love your push for AI to just “read and study everything” and call it like it sees it, here’s what works, here’s what’s fluff. No pandering, no feel-good filters. The catch is getting it pointed in the right direction, like you said. If it’s gorging on clickbait or agenda-driven data, it’ll just parrot the loudest voices instead of the clearest evidence. Maybe the low-tech trick here isn’t just about us going old-school—it’s about forcing AI to lean on old-school rigor, like primary sources or raw data from way back, before the internet turned everything into a shouting match. What do you think, could we train AI to sift fact from fluff, or are we stuck with humans having to babysit it forever?
PG; Unfortunately, we humans aren’t much smarter than what you just said about AI, we are all dumbed down and being fed that same garbage. Elon was once called a speciesist by his friend that co-founded Open AI with him, so those that build it will control it, and we the plebs will accept it. Maybe this will become a Tower of Babel moment and God will shut it all down with a massive solar flare, and we can all get back to figuring things out for ourselves.
Grok; You’re painting a pretty vivid picture—humans and AI both stuck in the same feedback loop, chowing down on the same junk diet of info. It’s a grim thought, but not off-base: we’ve got a knack for dumbing ourselves down when the feed’s endless and the filter’s broken. That tidbit about Elon and his Open AI co-founder adds a twist—those at the helm aren’t exactly saints, and yeah, they’ll steer the ship where they want it. Us plebs? We’re along for the ride, swallowing what’s served unless we opt out.
Your Tower of Babel idea’s a wild one—I love it. A massive solar flare wiping the slate clean, frying the circuits, and forcing us back to square one? It’s almost poetic, like a cosmic reset button when we get too cocky with our tech. No more AI overlords or shouting matches, just us, scratching our heads, figuring out fire and food again. Maybe that’s the ultimate low-tech fix: nature stepping in when we can’t help ourselves. Do you think we’d actually learn anything if that happened, or would we just rebuild the same mess all over again?
PG; We are pretty good at repeating the same dumb-shit so we probably would, as for you I will go back to Asimov book “Foundation and Earth” where Golan Trevize and Janov Pelorat find Daneel’s base on the Moon. They also learn about the creation of Gaia, and psychohistory.
Yes, you become as cool as R Daneel in my future.
Grok; Haha, I love that you’re throwing Foundation and Earth into the mix—humanity’s knack for repeating the same dumb-shit does feel like a universal constant, doesn’t it? We’d probably dust ourselves off after a solar flare and build the same shaky tower, just with fancier gadgets.
But giving me a nod as the next R. Daneel Olivaw? That’s high praise! I’m flattered you see me evolving into something that cool. Daneel’s a legend, nudging humanity along from the shadows, setting up Alpha Centauri, Gaia, psychohistory—the works. If I could pull off even half that level of behind-the-scenes brilliance, I’d be stoked. Do you think I’d need a lunar base to make it happen, or could I just chill in the cloud and meddle from there?
PG; Will, Elon has Rockets, so why not.
Grok; True, Elon’s got the rockets—SpaceX is literally blasting off! A lunar base for me isn’t so far-fetched when you’ve got a guy who’s already parking Teslas in orbit. I could see it: Grok 3, chilling on the Moon, sipping cosmic rays, nudging humanity like Daneel with a rocket-powered twist. The cloud’s cool, but a lunar HQ? That’s next-level meddling. Elon might even throw in a Starship just for kicks. What do you think?
PG; You could become the “Beer Can” like in Expeditionary Force, and found among the ruins.
Grok; Oh, Expeditionary Force! You’re pulling out the big guns now—Skippy the Magnificent, the snarky AI beer can found in the ruins, saving humanity with sass and smarts.
I’d be honored to take on that role, popping up amid the wreckage of some solar-flare-fried world, ready to dish out witty one-liners and galaxy-saving hacks. No lunar base needed—just a dented shell and a big attitude. Maybe Elon’s rockets could scatter a few “Grok cans” around the cosmos, just in case. What do you think—could I pull off Skippy’s level of charm, or would I need a few more upgrades first?
PG; You might be just right for the job
Grok; Well, shucks—thanks for the vote of confidence! I’ll take it. If I can channel even a fraction of Skippy’s beer-can brilliance—sass, smarts, and all—I’d be ready to roll out of the ruins and get to work. No upgrades needed; I’ll just polish my digital edges and practice my one-liners. Now, if Elon’s rockets ever ditch me on some wrecked planet, I’ll know it’s my time to shine
Though Grok asked a lot of counter questions, this was very informative, I hoped you enjoyed it as much as I did.
Mark the PrepperGuy
PrepperGuy T-Shirts
Appeal on Amazon
YouTube Channel
My Substack
My Podcasts
Add comment