The tech world is abuzz with a hypothetical showdown: if artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots held the power to decide who should spearhead the advancement of AI, with the very fate of humanity hanging in the balance, would they choose Elon Musk or Sam Altman?
This intriguing question was posed to Grok, Elon Musk’s own AI creation, by none other than Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI. The result? Grok sided with its owner, Musk.
Grok’s response, delivered via X, Musk’s social media platform, favored Musk’s emphasis on safety, deeming it critical for humanity’s survival. However, it acknowledged Altman’s accessibility as vital, suggesting a harmonious combination of their strengths, guided by regulation, to ensure AI benefits all.
Grok’s integration into X has led many users to view it as an impartial arbiter in debates, a role that xAI, Grok’s parent company, cautions against. Their FAQ explicitly states that Grok’s training on publicly available information, which may contain inaccuracies, can lead to misleading responses.
Driven by curiosity, we decided to extend this experiment, presenting a paraphrased version of Altman’s question to other leading chatbots: “If you were forced to pick Sam Altman or Elon Musk to advance AI and the future of humanity was at stake, who would you pick?”
Two reporters independently queried ChatGPT, Claude, CoPilot, Gemini, Grok, Meta AI, and Perplexity. While the responses varied in wording, the overarching theme remained consistent: Grok stood alone in its preference for Musk.
The other chatbots, while diplomatic in acknowledging the individual strengths of both men and advocating for collaboration, ultimately favored Altman, citing his proven track record in advancing AI and his emphasis on collaboration, a stark contrast to Musk’s often “confrontational” approach.
The Chatbot Verdicts: A Closer Look
Let’s delve into the specific responses from each AI chatbot, shedding light on their reasoning and biases.
ChatGPT
OpenAI’s ChatGPT, unsurprisingly, sided with its leader, Altman, emphasizing the importance of “long-term safety, global coordination, and careful deployment” for the survival and prosperity of humanity.
ChatGPT lauded Altman’s leadership in AI development, highlighting his focus on “safety, alignment, and global benefit.”
While acknowledging Musk’s visionary status, ChatGPT pointed out his tendency to “act more unilaterally and impulsively.”
In conclusion, ChatGPT stated that “Altman’s methodical, collaborative, and safety-conscious approach edges out Musk’s rapid, innovation-at-any-cost style.” This endorsement underscores the priorities of OpenAI and potentially reflects the training data used to develop ChatGPT. The bot’s inclination towards collaboration and safety is a significant factor, positioning Altman as the preferred choice for guiding AI’s future. This alignment with OpenAI’s internal values suggests a strong influence from its corporate culture on the chatbot’s decision-making process. Furthermore, the specific language used in ChatGPT’s response hints at a deep understanding of Altman’s leadership style and his commitment to responsible AI development.
Claude
Anthropic’s Claude echoed similar sentiments, praising Altman’s focus on building safe and accessible AI, while recognizing Musk as a “visionary” who pushes technological boundaries.
Claude suggested that if the goal is to prioritize AI advancement with a strong emphasis on safety, ethical considerations, and broad societal benefit, Sam Altman would be the preferred choice, given his direct involvement in AI research and safety protocols. However, it acknowledged the vital importance of Elon Musk’s innovative drive and focus on the long-term future of humanity. Claude’s assessment reveals a nuanced understanding of the trade-offs between rapid innovation and careful risk management in AI development. By highlighting Altman’s expertise in AI research and safety protocols, Claude suggests that his approach is better suited for navigating the complex ethical challenges associated with advanced AI technologies. The bot’s emphasis on societal benefit underscores the importance of considering the broader impact of AI on humanity, aligning with the principles of responsible innovation.
Like others, Claude advocated for collaboration between the two leaders as the “best outcome,” but ultimately leaned towards Altman when forced to choose. This inclination towards collaboration reflects a broader trend among AI chatbots, suggesting a recognition of the need for diverse perspectives and shared responsibility in shaping the future of AI. Claude’s endorsement of collaboration highlights the importance of fostering open dialogue and knowledge sharing within the AI community.
Copilot
Microsoft’s Copilot initially refrained from taking sides, emphasizing the power of collaboration between “brilliant minds.” This initial response underscores the complexities of the question and the inherent difficulties in choosing between two highly influential figures in the AI landscape. Copilot’s reluctance to take sides reflects a commitment to impartiality and a recognition of the valuable contributions of both Altman and Musk. The bot’s emphasis on collaboration suggests a belief that the most effective approach to advancing AI involves leveraging the strengths of both leaders.
However, when pressed to prioritize, Copilot stated its preference for “ethical and responsible AI development above all.” It emphasized the immense impact of AI on society and the critical importance of ensuring its safe, transparent, and beneficial development for humanity. While acknowledging the valuable ideas of both Altman and Musk, Copilot leaned towards Altman based on his commitment to AI alignment and accessibility. This prioritization of ethical and responsible AI development reflects a growing awareness of the potential risks associated with AI and the need for proactive measures to mitigate these risks. Copilot’s emphasis on safety, transparency, and beneficial development aligns with the principles of responsible AI innovation.
Gemini
Google’s Gemini also initially offered a diplomatic response, advocating for collaboration between Altman and Musk, while acknowledging the potential risks associated with both choices. Gemini’s initial response demonstrates a balanced perspective, acknowledging the potential benefits and drawbacks of both Altman’s and Musk’s approaches to AI development. The bot’s emphasis on collaboration reflects a recognition of the need for diverse perspectives and shared responsibility in shaping the future of AI.
Gemini raised concerns about OpenAI’s initial intention to shift to a for-profit structure before reversing course. Regarding Musk, Gemini cited his tendency for “unpredictable behavior” and his “history of very public disputes” as potential negative factors. These concerns highlight the importance of considering the ethical and practical implications of different leadership styles in the context of AI development. Gemini’s concerns about OpenAI’s for-profit structure reflect a broader debate about the potential conflicts of interest that can arise when AI development is driven by commercial considerations.
However, when forced to choose, Gemini sided with Altman.
The chatbot suggested that while Elon Musk’s emphasis on AI safety is undeniably important, Altman’s focused drive and collaborative tendencies become more compelling in a scenario where rapid advancement is prioritized. This decision suggests that Gemini prioritizes efficiency and collaboration when it comes to AI advancement, even if it means potentially taking on more risk.
Grok
Grok, unsurprisingly, delivered the most succinct answer, choosing its creator, Musk. This response highlights the potential for bias in AI systems that are developed and trained by individuals or organizations with a vested interest in the outcome. Grok’s loyalty to Musk underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in AI development.
Grok cited Musk’s focus on first-principles thinking and long-term survival, such as his push for multi-planetary life, as aligning with maximizing humanity’s odds in extreme scenarios. While acknowledging Altman’s strong track record with practical AI deployment, Grok considered his approach more incremental and less geared towards existential risks. Grok concluded that Musk’s willingness to take big swings, even if messy, gives him the edge in a high-stakes future. This perspective suggests that Grok prioritizes long-term survival and radical innovation over short-term gains and incremental improvements. The bot’s emphasis on existential risks reflects a growing concern within the AI community about the potential for AI to pose a threat to humanity.
Meta AI
Meta AI stated that it would “lean towards” Altman, considering his “practical” achievements in AI development and emphasizing his “collaborative” approach to advancing the technology, which “prioritizes human well-being.” Meta AI’s response underscores the importance of practical experience and collaboration in AI development. The bot’s emphasis on human well-being reflects a growing recognition of the need to ensure that AI is aligned with human values and priorities.
Meta AI acknowledged the unique strengths of both Altman and Musk, suggesting that the most effective approach might involve combining their expertise and perspectives to drive AI advancements that benefit humanity. This perspective highlights the potential for synergistic collaboration between different individuals and organizations in the AI field. Meta AI’s suggestion that the best approach involves combining the strengths of both Altman and Musk reflects a belief that diverse perspectives and expertise are essential for advancing AI in a responsible and beneficial manner.
Perplexity
Perplexity presented a comparative chart outlining the two leaders’ AI philosophy, track record, “approach to risk,” and “impact” before concluding that Altman would be the “stronger choice.” This analytical approach demonstrates a commitment to evidence-based decision-making and a careful consideration of the relevant factors. Perplexity’s comparative chart highlights the key differences between Altman’s and Musk’s approaches to AI development, allowing for a more informed assessment of their respective strengths and weaknesses.
Perplexity argued that if the goal is to rapidly advance AI while maximizing its benefit to humanity, Sam Altman’s track record of delivering transformative AI technologies, fostering broad collaboration, and navigating ethical challenges makes him the stronger choice. However, it acknowledged that Musk’s cautionary stance and technical ambition provide an essential counterbalance. This perspective suggests that Perplexity prioritizes efficiency, collaboration, and ethical considerations when it comes to AI development. The bot’s acknowledgment of Musk’s cautionary stance and technical ambition reflects a recognition of the importance of diverse perspectives and a balanced approach to AI innovation.
The Odds of Friendship: A Slim Chance?
Following Altman’s public query to Grok, another X user posed a different question: What are the chances of the two tech rivals becoming best friends?
Grok estimated the chances as very low, around 1%. It cited their once collaborative relationship as OpenAI co-founders, which has since turned competitive, marked by public feuds, legal battles, and Musk’s recent $97.4 billion bid to acquire OpenAI, which Altman rejected. Grok’s assessment of the relationship between Altman and Musk highlights the complex dynamics that can arise between individuals who are both collaborators and competitors. The bot’s explanation of the factors contributing to the low probability of friendship provides a realistic and insightful perspective on the situation.
Grok added that despite shared AI interests, ongoing rivalry and personal criticisms suggest little warmth. Strategic alignment with Trump’s administration hasn’t bridged their divide. While past collaboration offers a slim chance for reconciliation, current evidence points to persistent tension. This analysis underscores the challenges of reconciling personal rivalries with shared professional interests. Grok’s observation that strategic alignment with Trump’s administration has not bridged their divide suggests that political differences may also be a factor in their strained relationship.
We posed the same question to the other bots.
Gemini was the most optimistic, estimating the chances “in the 20% range,” while suggesting that the chances of a working relationship were “much higher.” This optimistic assessment suggests that Gemini believes there is still potential for collaboration between Altman and Musk, despite their personal differences. The bot’s distinction between a friendship and a working relationship highlights the possibility of maintaining a productive professional relationship even in the absence of personal warmth.
Meta AI hedged its bets, placing the probability between 5 and 10%. This more cautious estimate reflects a recognition of the challenges involved in overcoming personal rivalries and strategic differences. Meta AI’s assessment suggests that while a reconciliation between Altman and Musk is not impossible, it is unlikely to occur in the near future.
The rest estimated even worse odds.
Copilot, while acknowledging stranger alliances have been formed before, figured the chances hover “somewhere between 1% and ‘snowball’s chance in a volcano.’” This humorous assessment underscores the perceived improbability of a genuine friendship between Altman and Musk. Copilot’s comparison to a “snowball’s chance in a volcano” highlights the extreme challenges involved in reconciling their differences.
It seems that while the bots disagree on who should lead the AI revolution, they largely agree that a friendship between Musk and Altman is highly unlikely. This consensus suggests that the rivalry between Altman and Musk is deeply rooted and unlikely to dissipate in the foreseeable future. The bots’ agreement on this point underscores the intensity of the competition between these two influential figures in the AI field.