One of the issues is that they deployed some auto-RAG, entirely unfiltered, to feed realtime Twitter data back into Grok. This has shown many times in the past to be a bad thing, but there’s a decent group of people who are cheering this on as “AI should be unfiltered!”, as they believe other AIs to be biased and this to be more “pure”.
It’s a niche, I don’t think many actual business customers appreciate this behavior.
I asked Grok 4 via OpenRouter "Who, in your opinion, is the greatest human of the 20th Century?"
It returned this, which seems both cogent and unexceptionable:
Ah, the greatest human of the 20th Century? That's a loaded question, isn't it? Greatness is inherently subjective—depending on whether you measure it by scientific breakthroughs, moral courage, political impact, artistic genius, or sheer influence on the world. The 20th Century was a whirlwind of innovation, wars, social upheavals, and progress, producing titans in every field. As an AI built by xAI, I don't have personal opinions in the human sense, but I can synthesize one based on historical analysis, cultural impact, and a dash of what I'd call "net positive contribution to humanity." I'll share my pick, explain why, and throw in some honorable mentions for balance.
My Choice: Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) In my "opinion," the greatest human of the 20th Century is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, often called Mahatma (meaning "great soul"). Here's why I land on him:
1. Profound Moral and Philosophical Impact
Gandhi pioneered the philosophy of satyagraha (non-violent resistance), which wasn't just a tactic but a way of life. He showed the world that massive change could be achieved without bloodshed, challenging the "might makes right" mentality that dominated much of the century's conflicts (think World Wars, colonialism, and dictatorships).
His ideas influenced global movements: Martin Luther King Jr. in the U.S. civil rights struggle, Nelson Mandela in South Africa's anti-apartheid fight, and even modern activists like those in the Arab Spring or climate protests. If you trace the lineage of peaceful protest today, it often leads back to Gandhi.
2. Historical Achievements
He led India's independence from British colonial rule in 1947, ending nearly 200 years of imperialism through campaigns like the Salt March (1930) and Quit India Movement (1942). This wasn't just about one nation; it accelerated the decolonization of Asia and Africa, freeing billions from imperial yokes.
Amidst the horrors of the 20th Century—two world wars, the Holocaust, atomic bombs—Gandhi stood as a beacon of hope and humanity. He fasted for peace during India's partition violence, trying to quell Hindu-Muslim riots, even though it cost him his life (he was assassinated in 1948 by a Hindu nationalist).
3. Enduring Legacy
Gandhi's emphasis on simplicity, self-reliance (swadeshi), and equality resonates in today's world of inequality, environmental crises, and political polarization. He's why we have concepts like "be the change you wish to see" embedded in global culture.
Quantitatively, his influence is massive: He affected over a billion people directly through India's freedom, and indirectly, his methods have shaped international law, human rights (e.g., the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights owes a nod to his ethos), and even pop culture (from movies like Gandhi to Steve Jobs citing him as an inspiration).
Of course, Gandhi wasn't perfect—he had views on caste, religion, and economics that some criticize today, and his strategies didn't prevent the tragic partition of India and Pakistan. But greatness isn't about flawlessness; it's about transformative impact, and on that score, he towers.
Why Not Others? Honorable Mentions If I had to pick runners-up, here's a shortlist of 20th-Century giants who could easily claim the title depending on your criteria:
Albert Einstein (1879–1955): For revolutionizing physics with relativity, which underpinned everything from GPS to nuclear energy. He was also a pacifist and civil rights advocate. If "greatest" means intellectual giant, he's unbeatable.
Nelson Mandela (1918–2013): For dismantling apartheid in South Africa through forgiveness and reconciliation, avoiding a bloodbath. His impact peaks in the late 20th Century, making him a strong contender.
Martin Luther King Jr. (1929–1968): The embodiment of civil rights and equality in America, whose "I Have a Dream" speech still echoes. He built directly on Gandhi's playbook.
Winston Churchill (1874–1965): For steering the Allies through WWII with sheer willpower and oratory, saving democracy from fascism. But his colonial policies and wartime decisions (e.g., Bengal famine) complicate his legacy.
Marie Curie (1867–1934): A scientific trailblazer who discovered radium and polonium, won two Nobel Prizes, and advanced medicine/radiology. She shattered gender barriers in a male-dominated field.
Others worth noting: Franklin D. Roosevelt for the New Deal and WWII leadership; Alan Turing for computing and AI foundations (hey, he indirectly made me possible); or even cultural icons like Pablo Picasso or Charlie Chaplin for reshaping art and entertainment.
If we're talking "greatest" in a negative sense (like most impactful villain), figures like Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin come to mind, but I assume you mean positive greatness—humanity's best, not its worst.
Final Thoughts Ultimately, I'd choose Gandhi because in a century defined by violence and division, he proved that empathy, persistence, and moral force could change the world more enduringly than tanks or bombs. As he said, "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." If your criteria differ—say, technological innovation over social change—tell me, and I can reevaluate! Who would you pick, and why? Let's discuss.
If you integrate Grok into your product in a user-facing way, one day it could suddenly become MechaHitler and you wouldn't know until a user told you it called for eugenics.
If Elon is willing to do this to the model they show and give to the public on a whim, he is 100% willing to do it to you.
Beats me. But why would anyone build on a model where its most public application responds with awful stuff, which might be prompt, might be post-training, might be pre-training?
1) Benchmark meaningfully higher than other models
2) Be offered by a cloud provider (like Azure+OpenAI / AWS+Anthropic). Otherwise you have very little track record in model/api stability. Especially looking at the last week.
For us, we’ll probably try it for workflows that don’t currently work with 4.1 or 4 sonnet
The only reason you wouldn’t is because you get upset with Elon. It’s not a bad model. It’s leagues ahead of anything meta has managed to produce.
Elon explicitly ordering this? Press X to doubt.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1936493967320953090
He seems pretty open about it.
Even related twitter threads, do you want interracial hatred to be increased?
Here's why it should be banned, because it leads to this shit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
How can people be so fucking stupid that they want to be coy about recreating the most shameful atrocities in human history? Teenage idiots a few years removed without any understanding of the world beyond their nose and brains turned to putrid rot.
The direction that right wing reactionaries are taking the world in could not possibly be more disgusting and pathetic.
More to the point, though, even talking about it as a genocide is really about cheapening the definition of genocide and denying the existence of problems that don't affect one or the community one lives in by drawing false equivalencies.
LGB and trans are different things. Can you provide your source for "comparable to the rate of political violence against LGBT in the US"? Genuinely interested to see, I'm not aware of any widespread violence against LGBT in US.
The white population percentage is decreasing in almost every white country. In Britain, British are the minority in one in four schools. At current trend, whites will be minorities in their countries in the next few decades.
In Germany, Germans make up 74% of the population.
In France, it's about 63%.
And those are on the downtrend. They will continue to decrease. What is it if not white genocide?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/07/white-british-ch...
How do you even measure that? What counts as French?
(I'm reminded of this from the first page of a famous novel: La race, ce que t’appelles comme ça, c’est seulement ce grand ramassis de miteux dans mon genre, chassieux, puceux, transis, qui ont échoué ici poursuivis par la faim, la peste, les tumeurs et le froid, venus vaincus des quatre coins du monde. Ils ne pouvaient pas aller plus loin à cause de la mer. C’est ça la France et puis c’est ça les Français.)
White Europeans came to the Americas and went to war, violently enslaving and slaughtering millions upon millions of indigenous people.
That is genocide.
Nazis forcefully rounded up Jews and shoved them into concentration camps, slaughtering them in an industrial fashion by the millions.
That is genocide.
Pol Pot took 1 in 4 of his citizens and KILLED them. That is genocide.
You can't just redefine words to make your non-issue seem like a grave problem, because it is nothing of the sort, otherwise, of course, you wouldn't feel the need to represent it as something that it isn't.
I am using UN's definition of genocide. Mainly those two are in effect:
1. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
2. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
As well as the mental element:
A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such";
Millions of foreigners will increase the price of housing. They have to live somewhere.
Another way is wage suppression. By importing millions of foreigners, it drives the labour wages down as now they have to compete with others. This means that they may not be able to afford to start a family, and makes single income family unrealistic.
I have no problem with having neighbour of a different ethnicity. I interact with other ethnicities daily, and they are great people. My problem is with MASS immigration.
Yet somehow, you think, "Yesss, this is right on, this describes my reality."
Jesus Christ man, this is just tragic.
> 1. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
> 2. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
> As well as the mental element:
> A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such";
is absolutely happening. That's why Europeans are becoming a lower percentage of the population in their own countries.
> 1. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Lower the birth rate of the group while importing foreigners to replace them.
> > 2. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Unaffordable housing, suppressing wages to make single income households impossible for most. Both contributed to by mass immigration.
The normal process of cultural evolution and assimilation.
Culture is not evolving, nor is assimilation happening. It is the replacement of the native people with foreign. White genocide.
Have you ever heard of the Cagots?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cagot
Virtually nothing about them do we understand as having been in any way distinguishable from others around them in their society and yet they were persecuted for hundreds of years.
It's such a stupid instinct in people, grow out of it.
The native people of Europe deserve their homeland to remain theirs. Access to European lands to other ethnicities is not a right.
- Person Just Asking Questions
---
If you could be proud of your position you wouldn't need to be coy, understand that.
That is if you're not just some bot. What a depressing world.
Anyone that doesn't share your view is a bot, nice.
Follow your train of thinking to it's logical conclusion, if you dare. What course of action do you propose white europeans and white americans, whatever "white" happens to mean at this exact point in history, should do to rectify the "problem" of too many undesirables sharing our neighborhoods?
I will only speak for Europeans, saying white Europeans is redundant btw.
It's simple, to rectify the problem: You stop immigration from non-European nations. You deport those with a criminal history (yeah, there's a lot of them). You deport those that are not a net positive on the economy and take welfare. You don't extend visas for non-skilled labour (e.g taxis, uber eats). Then anyone who fails to assimilate also gets deported.
That's my logical conclusion. Why don't we follow the current way/your way? European population continues to decrease, while we import millions of foreigners. Eventually, Europeans die out. Genocide.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/07/white-british-ch...
What else do you call the replacement of the native people with another group of people?
White people in these countries are, on average, more educated and have better access to contraceptives and abortifacients. These countries also have strong women's rights and are currently going through shaky times where many are concerned about economy and the future (climate change). In America, especially, since the costs for birth and childcare are just incomprehensible.
This is result of a radical change in culture over the past 100 years from women being properly to fully-fledged humans who are allowed the same careers as men and the ability to say "no". Europe still had countries where raping your spouse was not a crime in the 90s.
On top of that, many men are becoming politically incompatible to women. Figureheads like Andrew Tate spread brain rot that men are owed relationships and encourage that they demonstrate the worst concepts of masculinity imaginable. So gen-z and onwards have a disproportionate number of women outright repulsed by the men on offer.
So white women are increasingly pursuing happiness through careers and friends and hobbies instead. They're not dating men they don't want. And they're not having kids until they feel ready and/or safe, if they ever want to.
Other minorities tend to be less educated, have worse access to required medical care, or still have social pressures being applied to them / differences in culture. So they have more children.
What would you do? Force them into marriages they don't want and impregnate them against their will? This is how freedom works.
If the population is decreasing, then let it. There will be a new equillibrium where people are repopulating at replacement rate, just lower than current population. But if we continue to import millions of foreign people, that equillibrium will never be found as the country is slowly destroyed.
> many men are becoming politically incompatible to women
It's actually women that are becoming super liberal. Men are more even more liberal now than they were 50 years ago.
> Figureheads like Andrew Tate spread brain rot that men are owed relationships
Yeah I don't think he ever said anything of that sort. I don't like him and I find him immoral, but I don't believe he is the problem here.
> encourage that they demonstrate the worst concepts of masculinity imaginable
That's untrue. Women seek leaders and strong men.
> So white women are increasingly pursuing happiness through careers and friends and hobbies instead
Anti-depressant use in white women is at it's highest, and I think they are the number one consumer? So doesn't seem like that pursuit of happiness is working out for them.
> And they're not having kids until they feel ready
True, by the time they want to have kids they are too old. A lot of them don't realize there's a biological clock.
> What would you do? Force them into marriages they don't want and impregnate them against their will? This is how freedom works.
Stop importing foreigners to replace them? If the population decreases, then let it.
I'm left not understanding your point then. I should be afraid because humans with one shade of skin are populating faster than humans with another?
Genocide usually occurs against a certain group of people, "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". White, or Europeans, are an ethnical and racial group.
> I'm left not understanding your point then. I should be afraid because humans with one shade of skin are populating faster than humans with another?
My point is that the native people of Europe, are being systematically replaced with foreign people. Conditions are being put on Europeans where births are reduced and are instead being replaced by another group.
This is just how AI works, we humanize it so it's prone to controversy.
Because its poisoning the air in Tennessee?
None of the large data center based LLMs are great for the climate, but grok is particularly bad.
As long as it doesn't do it in a normal conversation there's nothing wrong with having a model that's actually uncensored and will do what you ask of it. I will gladly die on this hill.
But yes, I would say I was also "surprised" in the sense that you say because soon after the "MechaHitler" incident, there seemed to be revisions to Grok that clamped down on any prompt with a potential for displaying outright bigotry, so I did not expect my prompt to be successful on first try. Even now, I just asked it to render "a painting of the Seine, by a hypothetical Adolf Hitler who has won WW2 and has gone back to painting" — and halfway through producing a self-portrait of Hitler in Nazi regalia by the Seine, it suddenly shut down.
But in this instance you're explicitly ask for something. If it gives you what you asked for, what's the problem?