Curious - what is the main issue you find polarizing with grok?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_(chatbot)#Controversies_a...
And here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_sexual_deepfake_scandal
I think polarizing is a generous way of describing the problems. My organization has outright banned Grok, because we don't trust SpaceX to hold up to contractual agreements vis-a-vis data-privacy/training. That's the level of reputational damage we're talking about here; and we use Chinese models (*hosted by US providers) for context.
Nobody else wants to be in the blast radius for whatever SpaceX/SpaceXAi does next, or whatever their next controversy is. It is easier, when asked, "Do you use Grok?" just to be able to answer no, instead of having to explain why you aren't embroiled in whatever is going on this week.
Please elaborate. Details would be appreciated.
Furthermore there are plenty of examples of the Trump administration contracting for millions/billions of dollars with companies that aren’t at the top of their game. Are Intel’s fabs best in class because the U.S. bought 10% equity? Are Trump hotels and resorts the best in class because the government expenses for its employees to stay there?
With an AI model it requires the ability to speak or write, not much more.
If you install Photoshop locally (ignoring that it's now cloud based), and made deep fakes locally - that's probably fine. If something goes wrong as a result, only you are liable. It's a general purpose tool - the tool author isn't liable.
If you instead set up a server, and let users create deep fakes on that server, then as the operator of the server you have some level of culpability.
AI safety is a tricky topic. At some level, having it is a pain. It's a general purpose tool! Why limit me? The answer is that I don't control the tool, and am not the one running the tool - the provider is. If I don't want AI safety, then I need to run the model on my own machines (or on rented servers).
If an LLM provider is going to sell the service on the strengths of the benefits you get from it, they should take responsibility for the downsides.
Grok is directly tied to Twitter in a way that other models don't have, so the use of Grok to do this stuff is inherently more public and traumatising for the targets.
You're right that people hate Elon and that they have good reason to do so, but you might be falling for the trap of underestimating the legitimate and unique concerns about Grok because it's easy to assign them just to "Elon hate."
Facebook has a far longer (and worse) laundry list of offenses and I'm sure you still use it. Or Threads, or Instagram.
> My organization has outright banned Grok
That's too bad, as it's currently the only model that won't consistently flag honest good-actor security questions, in my experience. So I'd ask you who you work for, but I wouldn't want to expose them to extra security scrutiny. ;)
Oh, there's also this: https://artificialanalysis.ai/articles/grok-4-6-benchmarks-a...
Apparently you are unable to coprehend that other peole have values.
*people
Also, that's not what strawmanning is. I never denied that Grok didn't act bizarrely offensively over a fucking year and a half ago (so did other LLMs, btw... and so have many other experiments over the years, remember Microsoft's?), which is an eternity in this space. I know Musk is polarizing, but give me a fucking break. Don't assume malice when social incompetence serves as an exculpatory factor.
Apparently, you are unable to comprehend that your opinion of things has been tainted away from the truth by an algorithm incentivized to outrage you. That what you call your "values" are, in fact, driven by someone else's greed for eyeball attention. Do you think civilizations that become anti-Western-values over time are more driven by facts and empiricism, or by catchy slogans that twist the truth and a media that uses cherry-picked examples which immediately trigger emotions?
Elon Musk, as the richest person on the planet, bought himself a propaganda platform he controls and started to finger around in democracy.
Its a lot more than 'just' CSAM.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6a7e8991-399c-83ea-bc65-2cf9a536fa...
Why don't more people do this, or trust it? Do they not want to get upset when their sacred cows are toppled? Do they not realize that getting their cows toppled actually makes them more correct? I don't know, and I'm starting to not care.
My statement to you is: I don't care what you believe or care about. I only care if you have actually faced the evidence against your beliefs and care. If they still stand after that from a good-faith point of view, then you can have them. Otherwise, they are just "partisan", and I have zero interest in partisan politics anymore, because it's way too bullshit-infused at this point, driven by a media whose profit only comes from outrage, and mired in people who are obsessed with identity politics.
(A friend once told me, "you are the most persuaded by evidence and argument of anyone I know... and that's a sad thing for humanity," so there's that.)
That said... My personal take (since I find this particular point unaddressed by the larger conversation around this) is that a lot of intangible value was lost by USAID going away, such as American goodwill. This then turns into fodder for terrorists... Which is, of course, very nearsighted. And the bill for that may come due one day.
Also, assuming people use Meta/FB/Instagram here, of all places, is certainly an assumption - very poor fodder for a “gotcha”. I find Elon’s political activities and the social beliefs he uses his purchased platform to spread loathsome and daft, and it will take a lot more than “almost as good on benchmarks but cheaper” to let my fiscal tendencies outweigh my moral ones. I’ve held similar beliefs for Zuck for far longer and have cut everything marred by the slime of his tentacles out of my digital life for years, as _many_ here have also done. Accusing someone of uneven application of moral influence over their decisions when you only have information relating to a single decision is poor argumentation.
If you find what Musk spreads palatable, or maintain distance and a lack of awareness, or just don’t care - fine. But don’t confuse the hill you chose with a moral high ground. Any snark you launch from such a position is likely going uphill, and then back down.
Are you really trying to compare my experience as a NON-certified security professional, with yours?
Mostly understood re: the rest. Musk knows what damage he caused, and he knows it likely because it hit him in the dollars.
... which must be just a coincidence, right? Nothing to do with this:
The thing about criticisms that Grok generates "CSAM" images, as well as many similar claims using that acronym, are actually more likely to be intentional mislabeling intending to refer to anime images. Advocates groups with British links love to do it, supposedly to avoid having to name states and/or ethnicity associated with it. which is frustrating because this is how BS like in GP is allowed to exist.
As for deepfakes... 100% they allow it, with weak plausible suggestion feature to decline it. They know that nobody will allow it if given an option. Same deal as Middle Eastern bot spams on Twitter: taking actual measures is against whatever their goals.
Where in the definition does it imply this?
I think it comes down to different ideas of why the law exists. If you believe removing access to pornographic material for this category means people will have a harder time becoming pedophiles, then that's how the Swedish law makes sense. If you believe pedophilia is a tragic disease that we can't treat and that synthetic pornography can help these people lead somewhat dignified lives without hurting children, then the Swedish law is actively damaging. Ultimately I don't think we have a strong scientific basis for any of those two view points currently. I'm leaning towards the second, but weakly.
But that logic usually align perfectly with the texts of laws. Those laws aren't supposed to be adult pedos beating and correction laws. They're not pedo soft landing laws either, they are supposed to be parts of younglings protection laws, globally. Technically that should be all that matters. So there's that.
Mechahitler? the lawsuite for CSAM in europe?
Learn about were you work and whom you work for...
Elon Musk wasn't happy that his own chatbot was to left, so they 'adjusted' grok so often until it became mechahitler.
https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2026/07/31_...
A more balanced view[1] of the proceedings is available via mainstream news:
> In the 38-page lawsuit, xAI — whose AI model chatbot and image generator Grok is available on the social media platform known as X, formerly Twitter, and elsewhere — said it does not contest the state’s interest in banning the distribution of AI-generated nude images of real people without their consent. But it said Minnesota’s law “extends far beyond that goal,” banning many constitutionally protected images and video and subjecting the company to a penalty of $500,000 per violation.
> The lawsuit argues there is no “safe harbor” provision for companies that make good-faith efforts to prevent such images from being created by users, and that it covers images that were consented to by the depicted person, or even created by that person.
> It also says the law’s definition of “intimate part” is overly broad, covering body parts that are routinely displayed in public.
Calm down.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-artificial-intelligence...
The first-order-thinking reaction is “oh cool, look how they don’t want it to happen” but the second-order reaction is “why does this company have such a problem when others don’t?” It’s their own tactics. If you want the “good” of 4chan-like behavior, turns out you get the bad too.
What gives you that impression?
I asked Grok if the family birthday image posted by Maye Musk could have been generated by AI and Grok refused to say that it was a possibility.
Multiple news outlets independently verified that the label "Made with AI" was on the original image before being edited.
In Grok's latest incarnation it admits the label "Made with AI" existed in the original but refuses to say that this means that it was made with AI.
Whatever Elon or his ghost accounts (his mom's account being one of them) is taken as gospel by Grok.
I can't stand that and I don't want to use a product from someone who does nazi salutes, flashed white power symbols on SNL and funds far right political parties around the world.
Grok was supposed to be the unbiased model, that is: regurgitate everything it has read. Obviously all data has bias, even all of the data at once, but the sales pitch was that you would get that unfiltered. At least in open source models, this has been shown to improve the competence of the model.
Then this happened: https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/grok-describes-...
So not only has bias been introduced, but they are happily biasing it for trivial reasons. So now the model needs to be competitive in exactly the same way that others are: on benchmarks (which are still not a solved problem).
But, I (and many others) disagree with how Elon has behaved politically and don't want to hand money over to him, so all of that is a hypothetical.
The model itself is great though, especially in grok build, which is a really nice harness I find myself preferring these days.