3 ms·

I'd start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_(chatbot)#Controversies_and_criticisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_(chatbot)#Controversies_a... And

I'd start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_(chatbot)#Controversies_and_criticisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_(chatbot)#Controversies_a... And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok_sexual_deepfake_scandal 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.

everfrustrated 2mo ago
The US govt trusts SpaceXAI for defense and high security missions. The idea they are lying about contracted AI services is absurd. They're also a public company which beings even more oversight than openai / anthropic.
- Someone1234 2mo ago
  I think using the current US Government, and their corrupting relationships with SpaceX/SpaceXAi/et al, maybe isn't quite the positive argument you believe it to be. I'd suggest that relationship is why it is unlikely the DoJ wouldn't/hasn't gone after SpaceXAi for some of their existing controversial actions. 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.
  - UberFly 1mo ago
    "existing controversial actions" Please elaborate. Details would be appreciated.
- deleted 2mo ago
  [deleted]
- bakies 2mo ago
  Running separate services for the government is very common in software services. Being public doesn't bring any technical oversight at all. I haven't actually heard of grok being used for the government security ive only ever heard Claude being used.
- vrganj 2mo ago
  Their closeness to the current US government is a cause for concern, it doesn't alleviate it.
- jayd16 2mo ago
  Is this top tier satire or pure naivety? You're arguing that military contractors or public companies couldn't possibly be corrupt or nefarious?
- danso 1mo ago
  SpaceXAI has huge incentives for not reneging on its commitments to the U.S. government, and those incentives do not exist for entities that lack the power of the purse and guns of the U.S. government. 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?
ralusek 2mo ago
Can someone help me understand the deep fake controversy? That's like making photoshop illegal.
- theshrike79 2mo ago
  Doing a good "deepfake" Photoshop requires skill. With an AI model it requires the ability to speak or write, not much more.
- BeetleB 2mo ago
  Think of it this way: 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.
- numpad0 2mo ago
  A lot of AI users are profoundly stupid and intently malicious. That changes perception of the tool... IMO it's because generative AI data is inherently toxic and contains elements that incite primal rage, but that's just my gut theory.
- gazebo2 2mo ago
  It was always possible to modify images to produce inappropriate or insensitive content, but plugging a turbocharged state of the art image generator with virtually no guardrails into every Twitter reply and then failing to address the issue long after it was obviously being used for CSAM or deepfakes of real people against their will.. well that's worse
  - 2mo ago
pmarreck 2mo ago
So basically, nothing that actually affects working with it in August 2026. Got it. 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-and-analysis https://artificialanalysis.ai/articles/grok-4-6-benchmarks-a...
- kibac 2mo ago
  The chinese are also mostly fine with good-actor security questions. Maybe even to comfortable.
  - pmarreck 2mo ago
    too*
- Manfrednotfunny 2mo ago
  You are only strawmanning around. Apparently you are unable to coprehend that other peole have values.
  - pmarreck 2mo ago
    *comprehend *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?
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
wyldfire 1mo ago
And here https://www.npr.org/2025/07/09/nx-s1-5462609/grok-elon-musk-antisemitic-racist-content https://www.npr.org/2025/07/09/nx-s1-5462609/grok-elon-musk-... ... which must be just a coincidence, right? Nothing to do with this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e2bbb-6Clhs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e2bbb-6Clhs

everfrustrated 2mo ago

The US govt trusts SpaceXAI for defense and high security missions. The idea they are lying about contracted AI services is absurd. They're also a public company which beings even more oversight than openai / anthropic.

Someone1234 2mo ago
I think using the current US Government, and their corrupting relationships with SpaceX/SpaceXAi/et al, maybe isn't quite the positive argument you believe it to be. I'd suggest that relationship is why it is unlikely the DoJ wouldn't/hasn't gone after SpaceXAi for some of their existing controversial actions. 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.
- UberFly 1mo ago
  "existing controversial actions" Please elaborate. Details would be appreciated.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
bakies 2mo ago
Running separate services for the government is very common in software services. Being public doesn't bring any technical oversight at all. I haven't actually heard of grok being used for the government security ive only ever heard Claude being used.
vrganj 2mo ago
Their closeness to the current US government is a cause for concern, it doesn't alleviate it.
jayd16 2mo ago
Is this top tier satire or pure naivety? You're arguing that military contractors or public companies couldn't possibly be corrupt or nefarious?
danso 1mo ago
SpaceXAI has huge incentives for not reneging on its commitments to the U.S. government, and those incentives do not exist for entities that lack the power of the purse and guns of the U.S. government. 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?

ralusek 2mo ago

Can someone help me understand the deep fake controversy? That's like making photoshop illegal.

theshrike79 2mo ago
Doing a good "deepfake" Photoshop requires skill. With an AI model it requires the ability to speak or write, not much more.
BeetleB 2mo ago
Think of it this way: 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.
numpad0 2mo ago
A lot of AI users are profoundly stupid and intently malicious. That changes perception of the tool... IMO it's because generative AI data is inherently toxic and contains elements that incite primal rage, but that's just my gut theory.
gazebo2 2mo ago
It was always possible to modify images to produce inappropriate or insensitive content, but plugging a turbocharged state of the art image generator with virtually no guardrails into every Twitter reply and then failing to address the issue long after it was obviously being used for CSAM or deepfakes of real people against their will.. well that's worse
- 2mo ago

pmarreck 2mo ago

So basically, nothing that actually affects working with it in August 2026. Got it. 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-and-analysis https://artificialanalysis.ai/articles/grok-4-6-benchmarks-a...

kibac 2mo ago
The chinese are also mostly fine with good-actor security questions. Maybe even to comfortable.
- pmarreck 2mo ago
  too*
Manfrednotfunny 2mo ago
You are only strawmanning around. Apparently you are unable to coprehend that other peole have values.
- pmarreck 2mo ago
  *comprehend *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?

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

wyldfire 1mo ago

And here https://www.npr.org/2025/07/09/nx-s1-5462609/grok-elon-musk-antisemitic-racist-content https://www.npr.org/2025/07/09/nx-s1-5462609/grok-elon-musk-... ... which must be just a coincidence, right? Nothing to do with this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e2bbb-6Clhs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e2bbb-6Clhs