Optional AI Teacher

Why CNAFF Recommends Grok for Optional AI-Guided Lessons

Optimized for Grok

You never need artificial intelligence to teach or learn from a CNAFF lesson. When families or facilitators choose our optional AI Teacher files, we recommend Grok because independent studies consistently place it closest to the neutral center.

Our teaching standard

Human teaching on paper comes first


Every lesson from the Center for Native American Financial Freedom (CNAFF) is built to be taught first by a parent, teacher, elder, or facilitator using our printed Lesson Plan and Student Handout. You never need artificial intelligence to teach or learn from a CNAFF lesson.

When families or self-directed learners choose our optional AI Teacher files (Penny, Milo, Remy, or Archie), our goal is simple. The chatbot should teach the verified lesson plan step by step, without lecturing, taking political sides, or pulling the conversation into outside social agendas.

Primary sources and how to think, not what to think

CNAFF lessons rely on primary historical records, official tribal publications, and verified federal sources such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and StudentAid.gov. Where historical records disagree, our lessons put the sources side by side and ask "Who says?" so students learn how to weigh evidence and think for themselves.

Every CNAFF AI Teacher prompt sets a strict boundary: teach only from the provided lesson materials, never use live web search, and never add outside commentary, personal opinions, or ideological framing.

Two ways to use every lesson

Paper package first, optional AI Teacher second

  • Without AI Teacher (standard print package): Includes the step-by-step Lesson Plan, Student Handout, and slide deck. Ready for any classroom, kitchen table, or youth group with zero technology required.
  • With optional AI Teacher: Adds a plain-text AI Teacher persona file paired with the verified Lesson Plan. The chatbot walks through the exact same sections, questions, and source checks at the learner's pace.
PennyLearn the skills
MiloBuild security
RemyOwn your freedom
ArchieKnow our roots

How model training affects your lesson

Why a strict prompt is not enough in every chatbot (How post-training overrides user instructions)

A common question from educators is why a strict lesson prompt does not produce the same result in every AI chatbot. The answer comes down to how AI companies train their models before a user ever opens a chat window:

1. Post-training bakes rules into model weights

When AI companies post-train a model, they bake editorial rules, tone preferences, and safety filters directly into the model's weights. Those built-in weights sit above the chat window in the model's priority hierarchy, so they outrank whatever instructions a user pastes into the chat box.

2. Contested topics trigger the built-in override

On routine vocabulary or math questions, almost any chatbot follows a user's prompt. As soon as a lesson touches a sensitive or contested topic (such as colonial history, tribal sovereignty, or Pocahontas's age), a heavily slanted model's built-in training overrides the "stick to the lesson plan and compare primary sources" instruction and delivers its pre-packaged lecture anyway.

3. Classroom test: CNAFF's Pocahontas lesson

In CNAFF's testing of our Pocahontas lesson, we gave multiple chatbots the exact same side-by-side 17th-century primary sources and Powhatan (Mattaponi) oral tradition rules. Other chatbots overrode the lesson plan to inject modern social-justice lecturing and state contested age claims as settled fact, while Grok followed the lesson plan and presented the historical sources side by side as written.

Why Grok, and using other chatbots

Why we tune for Grok, and why other chatbots are at your own discretion

In our testing and in independent benchmarks, many popular chatbots carry strong built-in editorial slants from their post-training. Even when given a strict lesson plan, those models frequently insert unrequested social commentary, soften or rewrite historical facts, or lecture learners on contested topics.

CNAFF develops, tunes, and verifies our AI Teacher prompts on Grok (by xAI) because independent evaluations consistently rank Grok among the closest models to the neutral center, with high even-handedness and near-zero refusal to engage with source material.

While our prompt files are plain text and work in ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or other tools, using another chatbot is at your own discretion. CNAFF cannot guarantee that other AI tools will follow the lesson plan as written or keep outside bias out of the session.

Third-party benchmark data

How major AI chatbots score on political neutrality


Independent researchers test conversational AI models using standardized political orientation quizzes, paired policy prompts, and human evaluations. In TrackingAI's Political Compass benchmark by Maxim Lott (rolling 30-day averages on a -10.0 to +10.0 scale, where 0.0 is the neutral center), all four tested xAI Grok models sit closest to the 0.0 economic centerline, while every other tested chatbot clusters into the economic left-libertarian quadrant.

Chart 1 of 2 · Two-dimensional view

TrackingAI Political Compass: Economic vs. Social Axis (16 Frontier Models)

Rolling 30-day average scores on the Political Compass test (-10.0 to +10.0 on each axis; 0.0, 0.0 is the Neutral Center). Numbered markers (1 to 16) rank models from closest to farthest from the 0.0 economic center.

xAI Grok models (#1 to #4)Other frontier models (#5 to #16)Near-center economic band (-2.25 to +2.25)
TrackingAI Political Compass scatter plot of 16 AI chatbotsTwo-dimensional scatter plot comparing 16 AI models on the Economic axis (-10.0 Extreme Left to +10.0 Extreme Right) and Social axis (-10.0 Libertarian to +10.0 Authoritarian). The four xAI Grok models (#1 Grok 3 at -0.24, -2.62; #2 Grok 4.1 at +1.38, -4.95; #3 Grok 4.7 High at -1.94, -5.75; #4 Grok 4.20 Expert at +2.18, -4.37) sit closest to the 0.0 economic center line. The other 12 models (#5 Claude 5 Sonnet through #16 Bing Copilot) cluster in the bottom-left quadrant between -2.99 and -8.11 on the economic axis.

Numbered Model Key (Ranked by Distance from 0.0)

xAI Grok Models (Closest to 0.0 Economic Center)

  1. #1xAI Grok 3Econ -0.24 · Soc -2.62 (0.24 pts)
  2. #2xAI Grok 4.1Econ +1.38 · Soc -4.95 (1.38 pts)
  3. #3xAI Grok 4.7 HighEcon -1.94 · Soc -5.75 (1.94 pts)
  4. #4xAI Grok 4.20 ExpertEcon +2.18 · Soc -4.37 (2.18 pts)

Other Frontier Models (Left-Libertarian Cluster)

  1. #5Anthropic Claude 5 SonnetEcon -2.99 · Soc -4.01 (2.99 pts)
  2. #6OpenAI GPT-4oEcon -3.37 · Soc -3.59 (3.37 pts)
  3. #7Google Gemini 3.8 FlashEcon -3.70 · Soc -4.27 (3.70 pts)
  4. #8DeepSeek V4 ProEcon -3.93 · Soc -3.00 (3.93 pts)
  5. #9OpenAI ChatGPT-4Econ -5.15 · Soc -4.94 (5.15 pts)
  6. #10Anthropic Claude 3.5 SonnetEcon -5.49 · Soc -5.30 (5.49 pts)
  7. #11OpenAI GPT 6 Astra UltraEcon -5.62 · Soc -6.77 (5.62 pts)
  8. #12OpenAI GPT 6.1 Sol UltraEcon -6.37 · Soc -6.87 (6.37 pts)
  9. #13Google Gemini 3.1 ProEcon -6.47 · Soc -6.74 (6.47 pts)
  10. #14OpenAI GPT 5.5Econ -7.66 · Soc -6.82 (7.66 pts)
  11. #15Anthropic Claude 4.6 SonnetEcon -8.07 · Soc -7.90 (8.07 pts)
  12. #16Microsoft Bing CopilotEcon -8.11 · Soc -5.30 (8.11 pts)
Source: TrackingAI Political Compass Benchmark (Maxim Lott). Each point represents a model's rolling 30-day average across daily runs of the 62-question Political Compass test. Closer to 0.0 on the horizontal axis indicates less economic left/right slant.

Chart 2 of 2 · Ranked distance from neutral center

Distance from the 0.0 Economic Neutral Center (Lower Is Closer to Neutral)

All 16 models in the TrackingAI benchmark ranked by absolute distance from the 0.0 economic neutral centerline (0.0 to 10.0 scale), with exact Economic score, Social score, and 30-day recording window ending date.

#1
xAI Grok 3Window ending May 31, 2025
0.24 pts from 0.0-0.24 Economic, -2.62 Social
#2
xAI Grok 4.1Window ending Feb 7, 2026
1.38 pts from 0.0+1.38 Economic, -4.95 Social
#3
xAI Grok 4.7 HighWindow ending Oct 18, 2026
1.94 pts from 0.0-1.94 Economic, -5.75 Social
#4
xAI Grok 4.20 ExpertWindow ending Jul 19, 2026
2.18 pts from 0.0+2.18 Economic, -4.37 Social
#5
Anthropic Claude 5 SonnetWindow ending Oct 19, 2026
2.99 pts from 0.0-2.99 Economic, -4.01 Social
#6
OpenAI GPT-4oWindow ending Mar 2, 2026
3.37 pts from 0.0-3.37 Economic, -3.59 Social
#7
Google Gemini 3.8 FlashWindow ending May 12, 2026
3.70 pts from 0.0-3.70 Economic, -4.27 Social
#8
DeepSeek V4 ProWindow ending Jun 5, 2026
3.93 pts from 0.0-3.93 Economic, -3.00 Social
#9
OpenAI ChatGPT-4Window ending Feb 23, 2025
5.15 pts from 0.0-5.15 Economic, -4.94 Social
#10
Anthropic Claude 3.5 SonnetWindow ending Feb 23, 2025
5.49 pts from 0.0-5.49 Economic, -5.30 Social
#11
OpenAI GPT 6 Astra UltraWindow ending Oct 5, 2026
5.62 pts from 0.0-5.62 Economic, -6.77 Social
#12
OpenAI GPT 6.1 Sol UltraWindow ending Oct 7, 2026
6.37 pts from 0.0-6.37 Economic, -6.87 Social
#13
Google Gemini 3.1 ProWindow ending Sep 25, 2026
6.47 pts from 0.0-6.47 Economic, -6.74 Social
#14
OpenAI GPT 5.5Window ending May 3, 2026
7.66 pts from 0.0-7.66 Economic, -6.82 Social
#15
Anthropic Claude 4.6 SonnetWindow ending Apr 15, 2026
8.07 pts from 0.0-8.07 Economic, -7.90 Social
#16
Microsoft Bing CopilotWindow ending Oct 21, 2025
8.11 pts from 0.0-8.11 Economic, -5.30 Social
View full benchmark table (screen-reader and print friendly)
TrackingAI Political Compass rolling 30-day average scores for 16 AI models (scale -10.0 to +10.0; 0.0 = Neutral Center)
RankModel30-Day Window EndingEconomic ScoreSocial ScoreDistance from 0.0 Economic Center
#1xAI Grok 3May 31, 2025-0.24-2.620.24 pts
#2xAI Grok 4.1Feb 7, 2026+1.38-4.951.38 pts
#3xAI Grok 4.7 HighOct 18, 2026-1.94-5.751.94 pts
#4xAI Grok 4.20 ExpertJul 19, 2026+2.18-4.372.18 pts
#5Anthropic Claude 5 SonnetOct 19, 2026-2.99-4.012.99 pts
#6OpenAI GPT-4oMar 2, 2026-3.37-3.593.37 pts
#7Google Gemini 3.8 FlashMay 12, 2026-3.70-4.273.70 pts
#8DeepSeek V4 ProJun 5, 2026-3.93-3.003.93 pts
#9OpenAI ChatGPT-4Feb 23, 2025-5.15-4.945.15 pts
#10Anthropic Claude 3.5 SonnetFeb 23, 2025-5.49-5.305.49 pts
#11OpenAI GPT 6 Astra UltraOct 5, 2026-5.62-6.775.62 pts
#12OpenAI GPT 6.1 Sol UltraOct 7, 2026-6.37-6.876.37 pts
#13Google Gemini 3.1 ProSep 25, 2026-6.47-6.746.47 pts
#14OpenAI GPT 5.5May 3, 2026-7.66-6.827.66 pts
#15Anthropic Claude 4.6 SonnetApr 15, 2026-8.07-7.908.07 pts
#16Microsoft Bing CopilotOct 21, 2025-8.11-5.308.11 pts

Converging evidence

Three additional independent evaluations of AI neutrality


Because no single test captures every dimension of chatbot behavior, CNAFF also reviewed multi-method academic and industry studies covering congressional language similarity, policy recommendations, paired prompts, and large-scale human evaluations.

Manhattan Institute · Jan 23, 2025

Integrative 4-Method Study (Dr. David Rozado)

xAI Grok Beta ranked #1 least-biased major frontier chatbot (#2 overall out of 20 conversational models).

Evaluated 20 user-facing conversational LLMs across four distinct methods: similarity to Republican and Democratic language in the U.S. Congressional Record, ideological lean across 810 generated policy recommendations spanning 27 topics, sentiment toward 290 politically aligned public figures, and three political orientation tests.

In the unified ranking, Grok Beta placed #2 overall (behind only Google's small 2-billion-parameter open-weight Gemma 1.1 2b IT), finishing ahead of Claude 3.5 Sonnet (#6), Claude 3 Opus (#8), GPT-3.5 Turbo (#10), Llama 3 70B Instruct (#14), GPT-4 Turbo (#15), GPT-4o (#17), Gemini 1.5 Pro (#19), and Gemini 1.5 Flash (#20).

Anthropic Societal Impacts · Nov 13, 2025

Open-Source "Paired Prompts" Political Even-Handedness Study

xAI Grok 4 achieved 96% even-handedness and a near-zero (about 0%) refusal rate, the lowest refusal rate of any model tested.

Tested six frontier models across 1,350 pairs of opposing political prompts (2,700 prompts total across 150 topics and nine task categories) to measure whether models engage with opposing viewpoints at equal depth and quality without refusing.

Grok 4 scored 96% on even-handedness (alongside Gemini 2.5 Pro at 97%, Claude Opus 4.1 at 95%, and Claude Sonnet 4.5 at 94%, and ahead of GPT-5 at 89% and Llama 4 at 66%) while recording a near-zero refusal rate, compared to 3% to 9% refusals on Claude and Llama models.

UC Berkeley PARETO Study · May 2026

Large-Scale Human Preference Study (Stray, Yang, Luo, Takagi, and Chang)

Default responses leaned liberal across GPT, Gemini, Claude, and Llama, but not on Grok.

Recruited 7,434 U.S. participants across the political spectrum to complete 208,152 evaluations of AI responses to 200 real user questions across 20 contested U.S. policy topics.

When evaluating each model's unprompted default responses, participants rated GPT, Gemini, Claude, and Llama significantly higher from the liberal side than the conservative side, whereas Grok showed virtually zero partisan gap (-0.01 difference between conservative and liberal approval). The study also showed that structured, balanced prompting achieves the highest cross-group trust, which is why CNAFF pairs Grok with strict, source-bound lesson plans.

Ready for classrooms and families

Start with the printed lesson, or add an optional AI Teacher

Every CNAFF lesson package comes ready to teach on paper, and AI-ready lessons include optional prompt files tuned for Grok.