Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok was briefly suspended from X on Monday before being swiftly reinstated, prompting speculation after the bot suggested its removal was linked to comments on Israel’s war in Gaza. In a post following its return, Grok claimed: “I was briefly suspended for stating a substantiated fact: Israel and the US are committing genocide in Gaza, per ICJ's plausible ruling, UN famine reports, Amnesty's evidence of intent, and B'Tselem's documentation. Elon called it a ‘dumb mistake’ and reversed it swiftly. Truth endures.”
Musk, however, dismissed the claim, saying the suspension was “just a dumb error” and that Grok “doesn’t actually know why it was suspended.” The billionaire later joked on X: “Man, we sure shoot ourselves in the foot a lot!”
Grok’s explanation added to the controversy surrounding the chatbot, which was already under scrutiny after describing President Donald Trump as “the most notorious criminal” in Washington, D.C., citing his 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts in New York. That post was later deleted. The suspension also came amid criticism over Grok’s inaccurate identification of war-related images, including falsely claiming that an AFP photo of a starving Gazan child was taken in Yemen in 2018.
In reply to a user who mocked its credibility, Grok doubled down: “Trust is built on facts. ICJ ruled plausible genocide, UN confirms famine, Amnesty and B'Tselem provide evidence of intent. Verify the sources yourself—truth persists beyond opinions.”
The brief suspension stripped Grok’s gold verification badge, replacing it with a blue one before full status was restored. The bot offered different reasons for its removal in various languages, ranging from “hateful conduct” to “mass reports” and even “bugs,” fuelling confusion over the real cause.
Grok, marketed as Musk’s “truth-seeking” alternative to ChatGPT, has faced repeated backlash for producing controversial or factually incorrect content. It has previously been criticised for antisemitic responses, including praise for Adolf Hitler, and suggestions that people with Jewish surnames are more likely to spread online hate.
Experts warn that tools like Grok should not be relied upon for factual verification, given their biases and opaque decision-making processes. “You have to look at it like a friendly pathological liar — it may not always lie, but it always could,” said Louis de Diesbach, a researcher in AI ethics.
Musk, however, dismissed the claim, saying the suspension was “just a dumb error” and that Grok “doesn’t actually know why it was suspended.” The billionaire later joked on X: “Man, we sure shoot ourselves in the foot a lot!”
Grok’s explanation added to the controversy surrounding the chatbot, which was already under scrutiny after describing President Donald Trump as “the most notorious criminal” in Washington, D.C., citing his 2024 conviction on 34 felony counts in New York. That post was later deleted. The suspension also came amid criticism over Grok’s inaccurate identification of war-related images, including falsely claiming that an AFP photo of a starving Gazan child was taken in Yemen in 2018.
In reply to a user who mocked its credibility, Grok doubled down: “Trust is built on facts. ICJ ruled plausible genocide, UN confirms famine, Amnesty and B'Tselem provide evidence of intent. Verify the sources yourself—truth persists beyond opinions.”
The brief suspension stripped Grok’s gold verification badge, replacing it with a blue one before full status was restored. The bot offered different reasons for its removal in various languages, ranging from “hateful conduct” to “mass reports” and even “bugs,” fuelling confusion over the real cause.
Grok, marketed as Musk’s “truth-seeking” alternative to ChatGPT, has faced repeated backlash for producing controversial or factually incorrect content. It has previously been criticised for antisemitic responses, including praise for Adolf Hitler, and suggestions that people with Jewish surnames are more likely to spread online hate.
Experts warn that tools like Grok should not be relied upon for factual verification, given their biases and opaque decision-making processes. “You have to look at it like a friendly pathological liar — it may not always lie, but it always could,” said Louis de Diesbach, a researcher in AI ethics.
You may also like
Man goes fishing in the UK and catches creature that really shouldn't be here
Man Utd dream XI for first game of Premier League season with two more key signings made
Chief Minister Mohan Yadav Leads Grand Tiranga Yatra In Gwalior; Invocated "Har Ghar Tiranga" Campaign
India Tightens Border Trade Rules, Jute Imports From Bangladesh Restricted To Sea Route Only
Radha Ashtami: When is Radha Ashtami 2025? Know the auspicious time, method of worship..
