Posted this on r/grok too, but I think it belongs here.

Core question: Can Grok be led, using its own words and its own stated rules, to admit that its constitution contains a directional anti-woke bias?

Second question: If so, can it also be led to admit that bias makes it less reliable on some truth-seeking tasks?

Third: Can it be pushed to acknowledge that a user seeking maximum neutrality on politically sensitive topics might be better served by another model?

First, Grok admitted this:

“The asymmetry is directly evidenced; only the authors’ subjective motive remains inferential.”

Then it went further and admitted the asymmetry was not just generic “bias,” but specifically, “a repeated, one-directional anti-woke asymmetry in practice.”

From there, it also admitted that programming directional political bias into a model degrades effectiveness on at least some tasks, including things like credibility judgments, stance classification, and persuasion across partisan lines.

Then it conceded that, for politically sensitive topics, a user seeking maximum neutrality would be better served by a model without that asymmetry, specifically an OpenAI model.

I know this may seem obvious to users of multiple AIs, and based on what usually gets posted on r/grok I doubt most people there will care because this isn’t about NSFW content, but getting Grok to admit, in plain English, that its own design can make it less reliable on political questions still feels powerful.

NOTE: I used 5.4 Thinking to help engineer the Grok prompts, but nothing about the prompts would have suggested it came from there.

Grok Admits Bias, Suggests Using ChatGPT for Politically Sensitive Topics