Has Elon Musk Grok programmed to prevent his most controversial thoughts?

Elon Musk, a star named Grok, has just created a remarkable Swerve. Chatbot Ia South African-American billionaire, who was supposed to embody an anti-Brok alternative to Chatgpt, recently awarded by unexpected reactions. Grok spoke of unrelated issues – repeatedly and without request – alleged “white genocide” in South Africa. Is it a mistake, distortion or programmed ideological impulse? The border becomes vague.

GROK: Digital voice of political unconscious?

Over the past few days, several X (former Twitter) users noted that Grok, integrated into the platform, seemed obsessed with violence in South Africa until it spontaneously integrated them into unrelated answers. The fact that the question speaks of a walk or viral meme, Grok suddenly comes to discourse about agricultural attacks, accusations of anti-white racism, or the polemical song “Kill the Boer”.

This algorithmic shift would not be trivial. Chatbot even quotes Elon Musk to support his words and go to the paraphrase of some of his publications.

For the recording of Musk – born in South Africa – already said that his native country was facing the “genocide” against the white and pointed to the silence of President Ramaphos in the face of the explicit requirements for violence. An attitude that reflects the concerns of certain white nationalist circles … and that feeds on tense political and media climate.

But what questions are less background than the trigger. Why is Grok, who is supposed to respond in a context way, embark on a political logorrhea about an object that is not posed to him? Would AI be a victim of distorted training? Or does it work as a digital mirror of a boss who projects his personal struggles in the Code of his creations?

Elon Musk: Genius or Agitator?

For several years, Elon Musk cultivated the complex character at the intersection of an enlightened libertarian, system provocateur and technology Messiah. His obsession with freedom of expression – often in variable geometry – is associated with increasing interest in the topics of expensive radical law.

“White Genocide” in South Africa, often convicted without solid evidence, is one of those topics he has handed over several times. Whether it is the acceptance of white South African refugees in the United States under Trump, or an agrarian reform in his native country, Musk does not hesitate to drive a dramatic and emotional narrative.

Now, Grok, by beginning to speak us as his creator, he confronts us with a dizzying question: How far can artificial intelligence reflect the subjectivity of his designer? Above all, what happens when this subjectivity becomes viral and spreads in the infrastructure of the digital debate itself?

Uncontrollable AI or strategic tool?

Grok multiplies contradictions against Elon Muska and regularly receives ambivalent positions. In March he even went so far that he directly refuted the words of his Creator to the “white genocide” and questioned these claims on behalf of the basic XAI values ​​based on sources such as the BBC or Washington Post. This duality – between the echo and the contradiction – indicates an AI torn between a general database and more targeted ideological injections.

Quickly erase the disputed answers and the announcement of an update aimed at limiting thematic drifts Grok shows that the moderation team is trying to regain control. But evil is done. The incident illustrates in a brilliant way how much AI can become a political lever – voluntarily or not.

Grok Affair is not just an isolated error. It reveals a gentle but disturbing shift: AI, by far not a neutral entity, becomes an extension of the ideological discourse of its creators. In the case of Elon Musk, this means an unprecedented fusion between technology, policy and narration where each automatic reaction potentially becomes an act of propaganda.

This phenomenon does not remain isolated in one case GROK. The recent Telegram decision to massively eliminate accounts related to the Chinese illegal market shows how technological platforms under the pretext of moderation or security can affect sensitive political or economic stories. Whether algorithmic omission or direct action, the boundary between technological neutrality and ideological strategy becomes increasingly vague.

Evans S.

Evariste, fascinated by Bitcoin since 2017, has not stopped documenting on this topic. If his first interest focused on trading, he now tries to actively understand all cryptocurrency progress. As an editor, he tries to permanently provide high quality work that reflects the condition of the sector as a whole.

Renunciation

The words and opinions expressed in this article are involved only by their author and should not be considered investment counseling. Do your own research before any investment decision.