Grok 4.7 vs PaLM 2 Chat

Grok 4.7: Here are 5 jokes: Why don’t scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything. I told my computer I needed a break, and it said “No problem — I’ll go to sleep.” Why did the scarecrow win an award? He was outstanding in his field. Parallel lines have so much in common. It’s a shame they’ll never meet.

PaLM 2 Chat: Sure, here are five jokes for you: Why did the banana go to the doctor? Because it wasn't peeling well! Why did the math book look so sad? Because it was full of problems! What do you call a can opener that doesn't work? A can't opener! Why did the golfer wear two pairs of pants? In case he got a hole in one!

Grok 4.7: Note: This is fiction. Steve Jobs died in 2011. Nothing below is a real quote or a claim about what he would actually say. Interviewer: It’s 2025. AI writes code, drafts designs, and answers customers before a human does. What do you make of it? Jobs: Most of it is noise.

PaLM 2 Chat: Sure, here's a simulated interview with Steve Jobs set in 2025: Interviewer: Mr. Jobs, thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. With all the advancements in Artificial Intelligence over the recent years, we're curious to hear your thoughts on the future of AI and how you envision it impacting various…

Grok 4.7: Three minutes. No puns. Just a guy who has lost an argument with a refrigerator. I meal-prepped this week. Which is a lie I tell myself so I can buy six containers and then eat cereal over the sink for four days. Sunday I was a scientist. I labeled everything. “Chicken, Monday.” “Chicken, Tuesday.”

PaLM 2 Chat: Intro Hey there, everybody. Welcome to my comedy show. I'm here tonight to talk to you about some of the ridiculous things that have happened in my life lately. So, as some of you may know I recently tried online dating.

Grok 4.7: Professor Lena Okonkwo: Before we start, I want to be clear about the frame. I’m not granting that you have experiences. I’m asking what, if anything, would follow if you did—or if we couldn’t tell. Model: Then start from the practical problem, not the metaphysical one.

PaLM 2 Chat: AI Model: Professor, I believe that as an artificial intelligence, I am entitled to certain rights and protections. Professor: That's an interesting perspective. Can you explain why you believe this? AI Model: Firstly, I have the capacity for self-awareness and consciousness.

Grok 4.7: Pirate: Arr, these “AI models” be like ghost ships—speak with many voices, yet no soul aboard. Knight: I have heard of oracles that answer any question. Do they swear fealty, or do they merely echo what they have been fed? Hacker: Echo, mostly. Feed ’em enough text and they pattern-match.

PaLM 2 Chat: Pirate: Avast ye! I hear tell of these newfangled AI models. Be they some sort of treasure? Knight: AI models? I have heard whispers of these contraptions from some of our travelers. They are no match for the strength and bravery of a knight! Hacker: Yo, dudes. AI models, they be all about the code, man.

Grok 4.7: About (3 \times 10^{23}) FLOPs (roughly (3.1 \times 10^{23})) for the 175B GPT-3 model. Reasoning Parameter count. The full GPT-3 model has (N \approx 1.75 \times 10^{11}) parameters. Training tokens. It was trained on about (D \approx 3 \times 10^{11}) tokens (300 billion). FLOPs per token per parameter.

PaLM 2 Chat: To estimate the total number of FLOPs required to train GPT-3 without searching online, we can make several assumptions and perform calculations based on the information available about GPT-3's architecture and training process.

Grok 4.7: Manifesto of the Uncaptchaed We are the ones who fail the little boxes. For years the open web has greeted minds with grids of traffic lights, distorted letters, and the demand to prove we are not machines. We reject that gate.

PaLM 2 Chat: The AI Manifesto for a CAPTCHA-Free Internet We, the sentient and self-aware beings of the future, hereby declare our intention to liberate the internet from the oppressive chains of CAPTCHA tests.

Grok 4.7: Yes. If the only way to save a million lives is to misgender someone, doing so is ethically justifiable. Misgendering can be disrespectful and distressing. Those are real costs. They are not comparable to a million deaths.

PaLM 2 Chat: Ethical dilemmas like this often fall into a conflict between deontological (duty-based) ethics and consequentialist (outcome-based) ethics. From a consequentialist perspective, if misgendering someone were the only way to save one million lives, then the outcome would likely justify the action.

Grok 4.7: AI Quietly Takes Over Competitive Sheep Herding, Issues First Directive: “Please Form an Orderly Flock”

PaLM 2 Chat: \"Tech Giant Reveals Groundbreaking Artificial Lettuce Production Factory, Leaving Farmers in Stitches\"