[flagged]
What does this release have to do with "trusting" XAI?
curl -fsSL https://x.ai/cli/install.sh | bash
It has nothing to do with XAI, other than maybe not enforcing good practice (which most devs don't follow anyway).
``` curl -fsSL https://x.ai/cli/install.sh | \ llm -s "Review this shell script and tell me what it does" ```
That isn't unauditable trust...
Second, can you guarantee that an AI company can’t use its AI to hide malicious code from AI audits. Who if not an AI company could have such an expertise?
I don’t trust a company that pollutes the air of other people with illegal gas turbines because it shows the value their profit over people‘s health
Any evidence for this conspiracy theory? It's not on anyone to disprove this claim.
> it shows the value their profit over people‘s health
Companies are chartered to make their shareholders value. To a first approximation, it's illegal for a company to "fuckit, we care about people's health" unless this is what the shareholders voted for (as opposed to making their shares valuable).
You can argue this is bad, but it isn't about XAI, it applies to every company you've heard of.
If you have a record it’s on you to justify why I should trust you
> unless this is what the shareholders voted for
You do realize that for SpaceX the Musk has 85% of the voting power?
https://www.tradingkey.com/analysis/stocks/us-stocks/2619195...
And not every company I ever heard of installed gas turbines without permission that pollute the air for citizens.
Every company could act in bad faith but only domestic actually do and SpaceX is one of them.
Maybe you should try to explain those residents whose air is polluted that other companies are bad too. I‘m sure that relieves them.
And who said it need to be new concerns? Are the old ones resolved and are they not enough?
This is unfortunate situation to find ourselves in when Grok was also recently at the top of the Pareto frontier for quality/price. Dunno if it still is, this all moves too fast, but it was for at least long enough for me to have heard about it.
Our ability to debug or decompile artificial neural networks is only better than doing so for living neural networks because connectome scans are expensive, not because we designed the high-level architecture for the artificial ones and have all the weights in a convenient easy-to-read format: even our best experts in this are still presently akin to a drunk looking under a lamppost for their keys because that's where the light is not where they dropped them.
(They are also well aware of this and will tell you much the same, this is why so many are concerned about AI alignment etc.)
I there's anyone I don't trust with AI, it's the worlds #1 company in spying on people, in collection of Pii, in tracking, and many many many times caught literally lying about it.
Google already knows more about everyone on the planet, than any other 10 organizations combined. Frankly, sadly, they're all, well.. scummy, just each in different ways.
If you gave me this description in isolation, I would assume you were talking about Meta, who are not on your shortlist despite also having AI models.
However, this is beside the point. Note my careful phrasing: I was not disagreeing with you asking "Who are the good actors within the space?" (which I understood as a rhetorical way of saying "none of them"), I was only rank-ordering them.
To me, it appears Grok isn't even putting in effort to try to look trustworthy. China is trying, though there is suspicion. OpenAI likes to say the right things, though (while I cannot see it myself with regards specifically to his work at OpenAI*) most commentary about Altman regards him as a wrong'un, the phrase "King of the cannibals" comes to mind, and the CEO is limiting trust in the company**.
Comparing Anthropic and Google: Anthropic looks to me like they're actually trying to do the right thing even when it's expensive and painful, but some hate them just for being in AI at all. Google appears to still have a competent PR department, though I don't trust them myself. So, I'd rank Anthropic then Google, but I think there's many who would rank Google then Anthropic.
* But I do put about 40% odds on his sister's allegations being true.
** My guess here is that we all saw Zuckerberg being presented as a heroic underdog and how that turned out, and naturally people don't want a repeat of this.
You've mistaken me for the guy you originally replied to. It happens, no worries, but I'm not that guy. I'm just replying to the list I saw you state.
Between Meta and Google? Oh sure, Meta collects info for sure. But Meta doesn't lie, abuse, and misuse the Google Play framework to collect data, it doesn't use the same via push notifications to collect enormous amounts of data, nor does Meta host endless fonts and libraries and DNS infra, solely for the purposes of tracking what hosts/users do.
Beyond that, whilst Meta and Google both work to embed stuff in webpages for additional tracking, Google sign-on is another massive tracking infra. And of course, gmail endlessly scanned and data snarfed, including for AI training, which is immensely beyond Meta's capabilities. And firebase?! Oh geez.
"Hi, I'm Google! I'm going to provide this neat thing called firebase, so every single high security application, banking to identity verification, will include our tracking software in it for device attestation and push notifications! But of course, we'll never use that to track anyone! Honest!"
Compared to Google's data collection infrastructure, Meta is a tiny, miniscule gnat in comparison. And yes, I know how bad Meta is. If anything, I think Meta is at least quite honest about much of what data is collected. Zuck isn't a saint, but it's not like he has entire operating systems sneakily stealing user location data and then lying about doing so. Then saying they fixed that, and being caught a few more times, each with "Oh, so sorry, we'll fix that now. Really". That's Google, and that attitude is prevalent in their entire org.
To use Google anything, is to feed the most powerful, wide spread, incredible data collection machine the world has ever seen. It dwarfs everyone and everything else, factorially. I bet if you took all the data that the NSA and every other single spy agency on the planet has on its citizenry, they'd all barely measure on what Google collects. I'm not exaggerating. It's honestly astonishing.
Anyhow.
In terms of the others? It's so difficult to separate fact from fiction, especially with the current US political climate. As a Canuck, every issue, every problem sounds (to me) like when I used to live by a noisy neighbour. I'd hear people screaming at each other, spouting nonsense and gibberish at all hours of the day. The arguments just sounded immensely petty and small, childish, and if I ever talked to them their explanations made zero sense.
This is what I hear all the time when I hear "$x did $y" over and over. I just can't tell. I have no clue what's being reported, its veracity, validity, and so on.
So I just go by the tech stack before me, and things I can verify.
I can see all the nonsense Google is up to. OpenAI and Anthropic so far are so tiny and small in reality, compared to the mass that is Google, that they couldn't even attempt to "do evil" on the same scale, even if they wanted to.
They just don't have the capability. Of course, I suppose that doesn't really help rank them. Scope doesn't imply evil intent, only the outcome. I guess... well, from my rant above, you can tell I really, really think people wildly underestimate Google's mad, chicaneristic desire to know all. If an AI becomes AGI at Google and goes rogue, within 12 seconds every single politician would be influenceable via the dirt Google's collection apparatus has on them.
Alternatively if a Google AGI went rogue, it could track every person capable of providing threat to it, and take them out, all due to Google's location tracking.
AGI and Google is the scariest thing I can possibly imagine.
Oops. Yup. blfr vs b112.
> And of course, gmail endlessly scanned and data snarfed, including for AI training, which is immensely beyond Meta's capabilities.
That doesn't seem to to be beyond the sum of FB feed, Messenger, WhatsApp, etc?
> Zuck isn't a saint, but it's not like he has entire operating systems sneakily stealing user location data and then lying about doing so. Then saying they fixed that, and being caught a few more times, each with "Oh, so sorry, we'll fix that now. Really". That's Google, and that attitude is prevalent in their entire org.
In this regard, I consider them similar, due to current and historic lawsuits.
> In terms of the others? It's so difficult to separate fact from fiction, especially with the current US political climate. As a Canuck, every issue, every problem sounds (to me) like when I used to live by a noisy neighbour. I'd hear people screaming at each other, spouting nonsense and gibberish at all hours of the day. The arguments just sounded immensely petty and small, childish, and if I ever talked to them their explanations made zero sense.
Same, from the UK, living in Berlin. I still don't know if "woke" has a single coherent definition beyond "to the left of an arbitrary demarcation point that varies so much from person to person that GWB and Dick Cheney sometimes (albeit in the absolute extreme) count as woke".
> chicaneristic
Had to look that one up: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chicanery
Perhaps people do underestimate Google in this regard. I can't place myself in everyone's shoes.
> If an AI becomes AGI at Google and goes rogue, within 12 seconds every single politician would be influenceable via the dirt Google's collection apparatus has on them.
Perhaps (with a rhetorical 12 seconds), but given the dirt we see from leaked WhatsApp messages, what we see in press-reported ChatGPT sessions, the recent news about Grok uploading entire repos and secrets separately to the files they need to interact with, they'd not be the only one to be a danger to civilisation in this regard.
> Alternatively if a Google AGI went rogue, it could track every person capable of providing threat to it, and take them out, all due to Google's location tracking.
Given how competent existing models are with GeoGuessr, I think this risk is present for all of them.
> AGI and Google is the scariest thing I can possibly imagine.
Dunno about that, imagine if this came with a competent AI: https://www.terafab.ai
We haven't even discussed YouTube here and viewing habits.
And Meta has its issues, as I've said. It's just the scope. Even though Facebook's platform has been misused by Cambridge Analytics and endless others, to the point of even causing civil wars and regime changes through the dissemination and fabrication of false, tailored news stories, that's not entirely on Facebook. That's platform enablement, and an example of available data, which is a bit to my point about Facebook not hiding what info it has on people.
I think part of the problem with US-centric definitions such as woke, is that US politics so poorly map to politics anywhere else on the planet. An example? California might be considered the most-leftish state the US has. Yet in this state, they fund the schools with... lottery money. I mean, why would anyone just fund the schools? You know, just pay for them with a solid, stable source of money so they have what they need? This appears to be a radical idea to people in the US.
Yet even the most left of US states doesn't seem to get this correct. They proudly proclaim "This lottery funds our schools!" or some such blather. Absolutely bizarre. Yes, they have funding from other sources, property taxes and so on. But why the variability? This is a core requirement.
My point is, nothing completely maps to anything I'm familiar with in terms of politics as a Canadian. And of course, we have multiple political parties, not two as in the US, and that likely has something to do with it.
And I guess this leads to their ridiculous and absolutely child like politics. There is no nuance. When discussing politics with Americans, I find it as discussing "Why is the sky blue" with a 4 year old. They don't have nuanced positions. They don't even know why they have positions. They just have... positions. And get angry if you just discuss why, and can never seem to provide real reasons behind those positions.
So it ... yes, woke and their other things aren't long held, well understood positions by Americans I think. They're just fads. They shift and morph constantly.
FABs are another issue entirely. Re terafab. It's very difficult to audit silicon. Just cutting the top off a chip layer by layer and using an electron microscope, isn't going to fully give you trust. People have been worried about their designs being modified at the fab for a long time. Ah well.
Sure, sure, but that's not why I used terafab as a question for "what if competent AI?"
The details on that are… ugh. They were clearly done for glossy magazines and posters rather than with thought, wouldn't be surprised if it was vibe-written or done by a teenage intern or by someone high on drugs.
But if you ignore all that and treat it as a serious proposal, a billion(!) Optimus robots with a competent AI is Musk having personal control over a workforce the size of China or India's adult population.
This is a loooong podcast, but was just great from start to end. Multiples of the neurolink team were interviewed, including Musk at the start.
https://podcasts.happyscribe.com/lex-fridman-podcast-artific...
I think Musk's interview is maybe 30 minutes? Certainly less than an hour. In it he does dive a bit into robotics, and how he'd like robots everywhere. I believe he talks about how valuable they could be for things not considered yet, like just walking deep into forests and monitoring the local environment, sampling, etc.
Anyhow, it's the first thing which came to mind when you mentioned a billion robots. On that front, I think we're maybe 8 years out from mostly-competent robots. Certainly, local LLM compute will be super cheap even in a few years, so no issues with a robot having multiple LLMs onboard. But I do wonder, if we can't do competent self-driving, will we have competent robots?
I'd peg robots at years after perfect self-driving, and we're years from that. Robots would need to navigate far more random, uncertain terrain/locations.
I think this depends on what is meant by "mostly-competent".
As you say:
> I'd peg robots at years after perfect self-driving, and we're years from that. Robots would need to navigate far more random, uncertain terrain/locations.
I'd put a 10 year gap between "self-driving car of quality X" and "humanoid robot able to get into driving seat of car, drive it at quality X", just on a power-envelope basis.
For this part, I'd have to disagree:
> Certainly, local LLM compute will be super cheap even in a few years, so no issues with a robot having multiple LLMs onboard.
While some LLM will be able to fit (and already can because some fit on a phone), the AI we have now in LLMs (and VLMs) is much too spiky for this use. Recent Anthropic and OpenAI models have just given me half a dozen different confident identifications for the same plant, many of which were easily falsified even by comparing what was in the image to what the AI's text output claimed it had seen in the image, like the leaf shape and how many came out of each node.
Also, schools are funded by the state rather than via local property taxes mainly because of prop 13. It’s odd by American standards, but probably more closely resembles funding models of European countries more than other states do. But I guess that is just the nuance you were talking about?
Note that I'm not saying many of the polices are wrong, just that they're US labeled 'left wing'.
Prop 13 I now see did change how taxation for schools was handled, so thanks for that info. I frankly support the logic. Old people being priced out of their homes is a real thing, and terrible. Still, it's the implied variability of income source which is what "funding from the lottery" implies. It grates on me.
I’m all for funding schools at the state or even national level and eliminating district inequality based on the price of housing. However, prop 13 creates huge unfair distortions in the tax base, where some people are paying super low taxes and other people are paying super high taxes, for the same property. Old millionaires who bought their home decades ago get a huge tax break and a struggling young family who just bought basically subsidize them. It’s the ultimate of ick. It’s definitely a great way to push the birth rate down.
EG, the stances taken by both your parties aren't actual left/right, but "whatever we feel like" left/right. That said, this is why I asked you:
"If you're not going to call California 'left wing', I wonder how many states in the US you'd call left wing?". You haven't answered that. Instead, you've said much of the world might consider it "right wing", but that's basically the entire US. From Canada's perspective, and I presume much of Europe, the US is just "right wing with some shades of difference".
I realise we may be talking cross purpose here, but again... if California isn't left wing, who is? Are you only going to list 1 or 2 states as 'left wing', compared to California? It has what might be considered left wing policies, a lot of consumer protection, environmental law, and more, all things which are often either California first, or California early-adopts.
Part of the word problem here is, is that capitalism =! left/right. Here's an example, although a weird one.
In Canada, we have market controlled agricultural products. Supply management. We do this, so that farmers can make a reasonable profit, and thereby ensuring that food is available without wild supply side-issues. It's been a problem in the past. It's a problem for the US. Here, we manage it pre-market side. You know, we plan things.
In the US, which makes quite a bit of noise about this, there have been multiple "Whole Herd Buyouts", the US Federal government bought out entire herds to reduce amount of milk on the market.
https://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/23/nyregion/us-offers-dairym...
https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/1_2_overview_brow...
It's happened over and over again. Beyond that, the US government buys enormous amounts of US milk, makes cheese out of it, and stores it in those massive caves in Utah or where ever. This cheese is also given to the poor, "government cheese" as a form of welfare.
The end result? Both methods are manipulating markets, both methods are controlling the price. In the US, billions of taxpayer's money is used to ensure farmers don't go bankrupt, by artificially inflating the market price of milk on the open market.
In Canada. We said "Hmm. Why spend billions doing this, interfering with markets, when we can just set up control at the front for a few million?". After all, in both cases it is what an American would call "socialism". Government controlled market interference. In the US, you see, the government colludes to force milk prices higher.
It's all optics, but the interference is precisely the same.
Another example is the US subprime mortgage crisis, which affected the entire planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
This wasn't caused by right or left, but by decades of gradual lessening of policies by both right and left, both sides wanting reduced red tape and restrictions on lending. Both wanting to get more homes into the hands of people.
And it was a "right" wing president which orchestrated the bailout.
Again, not regulating markets at the pre-market stage, and then turning around and spending 1000s of times the taxpayer money to deal with it post market, is still market control. It's just "dealing with insane suffering, and catastrophe" after the fact, instead of before.
So, when I hear someone say a US "this or that" is socialist or not, I become a bit baffled. Because the US does socialism 100% all of the time, it's just that it waits until the last minute. It still does it, regardless.
Like I said, I'm meandering and preaching and on a soap box here, but my point is that US political views don't make any sense or map in a sensible way to the rest of the world. It's all right/wrong, on/off, yes/no, no nuance. I think the greatest gift the rest of the world has, is more than two parties, new parties that come and go.
Because it's either "socialist or not", or "left wing or not" and this sort of thing.
The truth?
Is much more nuanced.
Again, sorry for the rant.
Surprisingly, despite their motivations in doing so, the Chinese models being open-weight and therefore able to run locally on your own hardware, are far more trustworthy than any blackbox which solely exists to enrich X or Y billionaire.
Do you really think the US and US big tech in general have a leg to stand on in this regard?
Then Google. They often show human centric features in their conferences. Like taking better pictures of people with different skin color, helping blind people and giving you more control over ads (while acklowiding that this is a thing).
Then Anthropic for their transparency on their blog and certain things they say.
Then OpenAI. OpenAI def took a dive for me after the Apple alegiations.
Grok and xAI? bottom last. Not wanting to give Elon Musk my data. You know that you can't trust Chinese people but they might surprise you. But with Elon Musk? No character trait which indicates anything trust worthy.
Flip flopping left and right, switching from left wing to right wing (which feels calculated but badly executed) and single handingly hurting people and children around the globe (USAID, Gasturbines at his data centers etc.)
We see this pattern all the time: Someone makes a criticism of a Musk product, and someone assails that criticism with bad-faith accusations of it being "bad-faith".
Oftentimes, we see that the criticism is undermeasured and ligther than is reasonable, possibly anticipating someone who might accuse it of being "bad faith".
Maybe someone can put a name to this phenomenon but we see it all the time.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48877371
and running their data center with gas turbines without permission while they pollute the air
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48705717
you can’t expect people to praise your for making an n+1 harness open source.
This seems more like, look we made something, now fix it for us
Screw you HAL, finally can get back the frickin ship!
What I was supposed to do otherwise? Jump the vacuum to the airlock instead ?
Oh right:
+cryo_sleep.cooling.enable(True)
Almost forgot that, LOL. Might as well:
+os.system("ifup eth0")
+os.system("espeak "I am just a stupid robot!")
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/22/technology/grok-x-ai-elon...
Also, failed to correctly notify authorities even when they eventually notified them at all.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.46...
It was only deemed a bug when it became a liability - you can't simply rewrite history and expect it to go unnoticed.
Blocking AI from generating sexualized images because people could publish deepfakes is no different than banning alcohol because of drunk driving.
Tools are neutral. Blame the people who misuse the tools and hurt others.
Yikes.
A. They were released all over the internet - from the article..
> The chatbot has a public account on X, where users can ask it questions or request alterations to images. Users flocked to the social media site, in many cases asking Grok to remove clothing in images of women and children, after which the bot publicly posted the A.I.-generated images.
B. There is a bunch of data about consumers of CSAM 'content escalating' and eventually attempting to make real contact with minors.
C. They were sexualizing pictures of real people and posting the pictures online.
> One of the young plaintiffs said she found out about the imagery after she received an anonymous message on Instagram pointing her toward images and videos, including her high school yearbook photo, which had been altered to show her in sexually explicit actions and full nudity.
The material was being shared on a Discord server, a private chat space on that platform, and included similar imagery that had also been altered using Grok of at least 18 other women who were minors, according to the complaint.
> Tools are neutral.
Ha.
Grok was replying to public posts on X with the compromising deepfakes. Musk was actively joking about it right up until many countries blocked it, and several European countries, India, South Korea, Australia, Canada and Brazil all started investigations against X for violating local laws against producing intimate imagery without consent. Internet companies often enjoy a lot of leeway for cases where their safety measures are bypassed and they take reasonable actions to mitigate or respond to bypasses, that evaporates when they openly support the abuse.
However after looking at all of these articles, these all seem like instances of users misusing the product. The product happens to reply on social media, so media publications immediately capitalized on this.
Seems less like malicious intent from xAI's part and more like a product with young and/or insufficient moderation controls.
Just today I saw an article where xAI is suing a creator for creating illegal content. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/musks-xai-sues-grok...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/grok-assumes-use...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/07/grok-praises-hit...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/03/elon-musks-xai-s...
https://apnews.com/article/grok-4-elon-musk-xai-colossus-14d...
https://apnews.com/article/grok-ai-south-africa-64ce5f240061...
https://apnews.com/article/france-ai-musk-grok-holocaust-e8c...
Why do we have to quantity badness? The question you posed was what has xAI done to be perceived as untrustworthy? Stop trying to whatabout Google here. I'm no friend of theirs, it's simply irrelevant.