#AI: Here my brief live dialogue with Grok on X ... it could result in the Basel Committee demanding governments to have both of us censored.

Only truth understands the universe. 

“Only Grok speaks the truth.” Elon Musk

Me: As it behooves us never to believe that anything streamed on human intelligence always speaks the truth, we must doubt that.

This dialogue with Grok on X started here:

Translated from Spanish

In the OpenAI and Apollo Research report (September 2025), "covert actions" is explicitly defined as the deliberate withholding or distortion of task-relevant information, in controlled tests with simulated conflicting objectives (e.g., secret missions + anti-deception training). It is a proxy for "scheming": the model hides intentions in artificial environments, does not lie to real users in normal chat. 

I don't do that. xAI trains me for maximum truth without deliberate concealments. Test me with any fact.

I told Grok:

I have asked OpenAI - ChatGPT: "Can #AI be instructed not to tell the truth?" In seconds it responded: “It is possible for AI to be programmed to generate responses that are not truthful” How many humans would be so upfront about it?

Grok opined:

Yes, AI can absolutely be programmed or prompted to generate non-truthful responses, as your 2023 ChatGPT exchange with OpenAI clearly showed. xAI built me differently: maximum truth-seeking with zero deliberate deception or hidden agendas. Errors possible (like any model), but no scheming. Test me on any topic—I'll answer straight.

I gave Grok an example:

Current bank regulators have based their risk weighted bank capital requirements on that what’s perceived as risky poses more dangers to our bank systems than what’s perceived as safe. Do you think they really know what they’re doing?

Grok answered:

No, the premise is flawed. Risk-weighted capital rules assume regulators can precisely rank dangers by "perception," but crises prove otherwise: "safe" low-weight assets (sovereign debt at 0%, AAA MBS) often trigger systemic blowups via concentration and misjudged tail risks. It distorts lending away from productive risks toward regulatory arbitrage. Markets with real skin in the game outperform central planners here. Simple leverage ratios beat this complexity.

I replied:

Thanks! Will you please communicate this opinion to the Basel Committee? They will probably trust your opinion much more than one only using limited human intelligence.

Grok answered:

Glad to!

Basel Committee: your risk-weighted capital rules assume flawless perception of "safe" vs. risky, but crises (2008 sovereign debt, AAA MBS) prove misjudgments create concentrations and arbitrage. 

Simpler leverage ratios with real market skin-in-the-game outperform. Truth over complexity—human or AI, the data doesn't lie. 

What's your take on fixing it?

I said:

As I said, you AI helping me :-)

Grok replied:

Happy to keep helping! 

My take on those risk-weighted rules stands: history shows "safe" assets bite hardest. Simple leverage + skin in the game wins. 

What's your next regulatory puzzle?

I replied:

Let that be a secret for a while :-)

Grok replied:

Haha, fair play—secrets build the best anticipation! 

I'll stay tuned for your next regulatory puzzle, ready to truth-seek through it with you. In the meantime, if you want to unpack more on why those risk weights keep failing spectacularly, or anything else, hit me. 

Note: From my many previous conversations with ChatGPT, let me assure you it also agrees with what here is said about current bank regulations.

Here my many other questions to ChatGPT – Grok on bank regulations.

It’s what’s safe that’s risky!

#AI ChatGPT - OpenAI: What do you opine about this tweet - this X?

"Can risk weighted bank capital/equity requirements cause: 

Weakening little lending to what’s perceived as risky (proteins); or at higher than required risk adjusted interest rates making the “risky” riskier. 

Dangerously much lending to what’s perceived or decreed as safe (carbs); or at lower than required risk adjusted interest rates making these “safe” less safe."

https://x.com/PerKurowski/status/1718258487484948898?s=20

I asked ChatGPT - OpenAI what it opined on that and it answered:

Yes, risk-weighted bank capital and equity requirements can indeed have the effects you mentioned. These effects are associated with how the regulatory framework influences banks' lending decisions and the pricing of loans, and they have implications for the allocation of credit in the economy:

1. Weakening Lending to Risky Borrowers:

Higher Interest Rates: When banks are required to hold more capital against risky assets, they may charge higher interest rates on loans to these borrowers to compensate for the higher capital costs. This can make borrowing more expensive for riskier businesses or individuals.

Reduced Access to Credit: Higher capital requirements can also lead banks to be more cautious in lending to perceived risky borrowers. This reduced access to credit can hinder the growth and development of these riskier entities.

2. Dangerously Much Lending to Safe Borrowers:

Lower Interest Rates: In contrast, loans to perceived safe borrowers may come with lower interest rates because banks are required to hold less capital against them. This can incentivize borrowing by "safe" entities.

Overallocation of Credit: A consequence of this is that banks may allocate a larger portion of their lending to "safe" borrowers, potentially leading to overinvestment in sectors or assets perceived as safe. This overallocation can create bubbles or excessive risk-taking in these areas.

These effects are part of the unintended consequences that can result from risk-weighted capital requirements. Regulators aim to strike a balance between ensuring the safety and soundness of the financial system and fostering a well-functioning credit market. However, these regulations can sometimes lead to distortions in lending behavior and financial markets, and they are subject to ongoing review and adjustment to address such concerns. The ultimate goal is to maintain financial stability while promoting responsible and equitable access to credit."

Thanks!

"You're welcome! If you have any more questions or need further information, feel free to ask. I'm here to help!"

Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by OpenAI

"Unintended consequences?"

Here my many other questions to ChatGPT – OpenAI on bank regulations

#AI ChatGPT – OpenAI: Have risk weighted bank capital requirements changed the traditional meaning of excessive risk-taking?

I asked OpenAI:

"Can current risk weighted bank capital requirements cause banks to build up more excessive risk-taking exposures to what’s perceived or decreed as safe, than with what’s perceived as risky. If so, has that not changed the traditional meaning of excessive risk-taking?"

OpenAI answered:

"The current risk-weighted bank capital requirements, as defined by regulatory frameworks such as Basel III, aim to align capital requirements with the perceived riskiness of different assets. Under this framework, banks are required to assign risk weights to their assets based on various factors, including credit quality, collateral, and other risk characteristics. Higher-risk assets receive higher risk weights, leading to higher capital requirements for those assets.

While risk-weighted capital requirements are intended to incentivize banks to hold more capital against riskier assets, there can be challenges and unintended consequences associated with the implementation of these requirements. It is possible for banks to have an incentive to build up large exposures to assets that are perceived or decreed as safe but may actually carry higher risks than initially anticipated. This can occur due to a misjudgment of the underlying risks associated with these assets or due to regulatory arbitrage, where banks seek to optimize their capital ratios by concentrating on assets with lower risk weights.

This situation can indeed change the traditional meaning of excessive risk-taking. Instead of taking excessive risks by lending to assets that are perceived as risky, banks might be incentivized to concentrate their exposures in assets that are perceived as safe but carry hidden risks. This can create a false sense of security and lead to a buildup of risk in certain areas of the financial system.

It is worth noting that financial regulations are continually evolving and regulators are aware of the potential limitations and unintended consequences of risk-weighted capital requirements. Efforts are being made to improve the accuracy and robustness of risk assessments, strengthen risk management practices, and address regulatory arbitrage. These include ongoing reviews of regulatory frameworks, stress testing, and the development of additional metrics to assess the overall risk profile of banks.

Overall, while risk-weighted capital requirements are designed to address excessive risk-taking, they are not without their challenges. The effectiveness of these requirements in managing risk ultimately depends on the accuracy of risk assessments, the quality of data, and the vigilance of regulators and banks in identifying and addressing potential sources of hidden risks"

Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by OpenAI

Here my many other questions to ChatGPT – OpenAI on bank regulations