Grok: downloads all your data and also will produce AI porn of anyone you ask for including kids; also currently polluting the air and water near data centers
SpaceX: launching loads heavy metals into space which are planned to burn up and spread all over the earth in a decade or two
Tesla: takes money for features that don’t exist, auto pilot that’s probably killed people but since it disengages a micro second before impact it doesn’t
He himself tried to buy an election by giving away a million bucks, turns out that’s illegal; he also stuck his nose in the cave thing, and plenty of other horrible shit.
How am I supposed to trust an Elon company with his track record?
It’s not just moral grandstanding here, Elon sucks.
First, why audit it when the agent can build a new one.
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
> 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?
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.
Rank ordered by reputation / caring about having a trustworthy corporate identity: [Google, Anthropic] in either order depending who you ask, OpenAI, most of the Chinese AI corporations, then Grok.
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.
Google?!?!. From where I sit, Google is just above the Chinese. They've been bad-faith actors for more than a decade, I guess everyone is just so used to it that they ignore it.
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.
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.
It's not ad hominem. The head is a strongly polarizing individual. People working for him must either be gravely apathetic or at least of a similar polarity.
The comment actually describes a known social process, with a reasonable base assumption given that said leadership has shown a pattern in this regard.
Just throwing out debate terms in response seems not so serious, tbh.
Reiserfs. A good example on how oss cannot save the product. There are others, but this is the first one that comes to my mind. If you use clearly unethical oss, are you just using oss or are you a part of the problem? Typically, oss purists take these into account.
This is clearly a good-faith criticism and there is no lens in which I could see it described as bad-faith.
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.
You can't separate the man or his business from the politics, he wades into every political debate he can and deliberately tries to troll as many of his perceived enemies as possible.
Aside from their CEO are they really that different from the other big US players? OpenAI, Anthropic and Google all have proven themselves to be untrustworthy as well. We should accept that we have an adversarial relationship with all these companies and shouldn't invest to much in any of them. Use them for what they are worth while the technology matures but be prepared to move on.
It's Apache 2.0. You can have your agents audit it if you want.
What does this release have to do with "trusting" XAI?
this is unauditable trust in XAI.
It's auditable, just redirect, don't pipe. Or fix your bash to not allow this.
It has nothing to do with XAI, other than maybe not enforcing good practice (which most devs don't follow anyway).
1 reply →
Just build it
[flagged]
X (formerly Twitter): full of literal naxis
Grok: downloads all your data and also will produce AI porn of anyone you ask for including kids; also currently polluting the air and water near data centers
SpaceX: launching loads heavy metals into space which are planned to burn up and spread all over the earth in a decade or two
Tesla: takes money for features that don’t exist, auto pilot that’s probably killed people but since it disengages a micro second before impact it doesn’t
He himself tried to buy an election by giving away a million bucks, turns out that’s illegal; he also stuck his nose in the cave thing, and plenty of other horrible shit.
How am I supposed to trust an Elon company with his track record?
It’s not just moral grandstanding here, Elon sucks.
8 replies →
First, why audit it when the agent can build a new one.
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
> 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?
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.
1 reply →
Nothing you said here can't be applied to literally any company on earth. And nothing you said here is even a new concern.
2 replies →
Your choice is Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, or the Chinese. Who are the good actors within the space?
Rank ordered by reputation / caring about having a trustworthy corporate identity: [Google, Anthropic] in either order depending who you ask, OpenAI, most of the Chinese AI corporations, then Grok.
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.
For me, the Chinese labs are far and away the most trustworthy.
3 replies →
Google?!?!. From where I sit, Google is just above the Chinese. They've been bad-faith actors for more than a decade, I guess everyone is just so used to it that they ignore it.
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.
The open source and open weight models.
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.
None. There are no good actors in a profit-driven endeavour. But open-weight seems pretty good (the chinese)
The Chinese are surely less evil than Anthropic, OpenAI and/or Google, at this stage at least.
You’ve got to be kidding me. Last I checked, Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google haven’t systematically exterminated an entire culture of people.
3 replies →
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
It's not ad hominem. The head is a strongly polarizing individual. People working for him must either be gravely apathetic or at least of a similar polarity.
The comment actually describes a known social process, with a reasonable base assumption given that said leadership has shown a pattern in this regard.
Just throwing out debate terms in response seems not so serious, tbh.
Not a serious company or CEO either. Have you seen that gesture of him trying to summon the Luftwaffe?
Ad hominem means attacking people rather than arguments.
Pointing out that criminals are criminals is not an ad hominem.
1 reply →
"Ad hominem, not a serious argument" is an ad hominem, nonserious argument
explain why it's an ad hominem
5 replies →
You live under the wrong impression that ad hominem is always bad.
Ad hominem is allowed under certain circumstances, just remember Epstein.
Would you have bought anything from him and dismissed any critique of that as ad hominem?
2 replies →
[flagged]
2 replies →
They made it open source. Are you just trying to be bad faith here? Isn't this what the community was asking for?
Reiserfs. A good example on how oss cannot save the product. There are others, but this is the first one that comes to my mind. If you use clearly unethical oss, are you just using oss or are you a part of the problem? Typically, oss purists take these into account.
"Guys, HAL 9000's harness is open source. You can let your agents inspect the code!"
+pod_bay.door.open()
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!")
How about stopping the upload of all the data
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
[flagged]
1 reply →
[flagged]
by this standard no good faith criticism of anything musk-adjacent is possible
Understandably
This is clearly a good-faith criticism and there is no lens in which I could see it described as bad-faith.
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.
Then you better not use Claude Code, since that is still closed source.
Do you have any examples to illustrate these extraordinary claims?
The many controversies are not hard to find as the children to your comment will show.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/22/technology/grok-x-ai-elon...
They had a bug in their model that they fixed within days is evidence they are "untrustworthy"?
3 replies →
Why is that even a problem? If no images are released on the internet (and users consume them privately), no one is harmed in the process.
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.
3 replies →
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48892468
read the top comment
6 replies →
https://boingboing.net/2026/01/06/x-faces-global-investigati...
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/grok-s...
https://apnews.com/article/grok-ai-elon-musk-xai-f3f8195a176...
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...
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/05/xais-grok-suddenly-cant-s...
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-making-changes...
8 replies →
getting into politics again...
I think examples such as letting people nudify children qualifies xAI as a bad actor without having to be political.
but the first thing a democrat does IS this
How is it possible for deciding whether or not to build on the labor of some other organized group of people to not be politics?
You know who is apolitical? Russian voters. Works out great for them.
There's plenty of non-political reasons to avoid believing anything that a con-man says.
You can't separate the man or his business from the politics, he wades into every political debate he can and deliberately tries to troll as many of his perceived enemies as possible.
Grok is a generator of child sexual assault material.
Aside from their CEO are they really that different from the other big US players? OpenAI, Anthropic and Google all have proven themselves to be untrustworthy as well. We should accept that we have an adversarial relationship with all these companies and shouldn't invest to much in any of them. Use them for what they are worth while the technology matures but be prepared to move on.
Oh yeah, aside from their CEO? OK.
Sam Altman is just as bad, but along different lines.