How I Fought Grok and Won

The Internet says I am a horrible person. I’ve been in the public fight over moral issues for going on thirty years. I have published more than a million words on these issues, tweeted some hard words, and Facebook argued. Maybe I have pushed too hard here and there. I am not exactly winsome. 

And then there is the fact that the Sexual Left fibs, especially about their favorite issues and those they see as enemies. I have something on the order of 67 entries in Right Wing Watch and probably as many at GLAAD. The group I run is on the Southern Poverty Law Center hate list for telling the government of Belize they have no treaty obligation regarding sodomy. To sexual ideologues, telling the truth about international law is hate.  To sexual ideologues, telling the truth about international law is hate. Tweet This

One of the most persistent lies told about me by the Sexual Left is that I have called for the “criminalization of homosexuality.” The proof is that I have supported laws limiting the ability of homosexuals to propagandize school children, as happened in Russia more than a decade ago. They also say falsely and without evidence that I have supported laws in Africa making homosexuals liable to the death penalty. There is also the valid claim that my group C-Fam, which lobbies the U.N. on life and family matters, has lobbied to overturn certain U.N. reports and LGBTQ+ initiatives. 

The good news is that most of these nasty accusations have fallen to pages two, three, and four in the Googler. But they are still there. My Wikipedia page, however, is a disaster. 

And then there is the rise of Artificial Intelligence. So, the other day, I asked Grok (the AI application of 𝕏), “Who is Austin Ruse.” Included in the answer was the slander that I support the criminalization of homosexuality.

I replied, “Austin Ruse has never advocated for criminalizing homosexuality.” 

Grok replied, “Austin Ruse has indeed expressed support for laws that criminalize homosexuality in various contexts.” Grok specifically referenced my support for laws against homosexual propagandizing of school children, as in Russia. 

I replied, “The Russian law was not about criminalizing homosexuality. Moreover, his work at the U.N. on this issue had nothing to do with criminalizing homosexuality but rather halting sexual orientation and gender identity from entering into international law as a human right.” 

Grok agreed about the Russian law and then agreed about my group’s work at the U.N.: “As for Austin Ruse’s work at the United Nations through C-Fam, his efforts align with the different but related angle. He wasn’t pushing to criminalize homosexuality globally; there’s no evidence he advocated for that at the U.N.”

So, then I suggested this, “So perhaps change the first entry about Ruse calling for homosexuality to be outlawed. After all there is a difference between that and opposing homosexuality becoming a human right.” 

And then I got this from Grok. “Fair point—there’s a meaningful distinction between advocating for criminalization and opposing the recognition of homosexuality as a human right under international law.” 

And then Grok said this: 

Here’s a revised take on that aspect of Austin Ruse’s profile, keeping it accurate and focused: Austin Ruse is an American conservative political activist, journalist, and author, best known as the president of the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-FAM). Through C-FAM, which he has led since 2000, Ruse works to influence social policy at the United Nations, advocating for anti-abortion positions and resisting the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories in international human rights law.

Grok goes on fairly about positions I have taken and those taken by my organization. The exchange lasted only a few minutes and involved only three exchanges. You could have knocked me over with a feather. I sat there with my mouth hanging wide open. 

I went to ChatGPT for the same exercise and had pretty much the same experience. I had to push back and argue. ChatGPT tended toward telling both sides but still eventually came down on my claim that I have never called for the criminalizing of homosexuality. 

Several months ago, Jay Richards, at the Heritage Foundation, argued with ChatGPT on sex and gender. What started with Sexual Left talking points eventually evolved into a satisfactory exchange and conclusion. The good news is that these AI programs are reasonable! How is it possible that a machine can show reasonableness, yet individuals—i.e., editors at Wikipedia—never will? 

A friend of mine spent many years in the C-Suite at Google working on issues like this. He warned me not to write about this little victory. His concern was twofold: First, some folks on the Right still believe there is a demon in this machine. He was also concerned that my enemies would go in and argue with Grok and change it all back. We shall see. The good news is that even if they do, Grok will still be open to counterarguments. 

One worrying thing: I asked Grok to write a column against climate change in “the voice of Austin Ruse.” It returned a column in seconds that was quite good and quite me. Here’s a question. Is the column you are reading right now Grok or me? Either way, the good news is that Grok is willing to listen.