Musk's AI chatbot Grok under fire for posts praising Hitler
By Mona GUICHARD
Billionaire Elon Musk's artificial intelligence chatbot Grok came under fire Wednesday for anti-Semitic comments, praising Adolf Hitler and insulting Islam in separate posts on the X platform.
One series of comments, which included insults directed at Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, led a court there to ban the posts in question.
These were just the latest in a series of controversies surrounding Musk's AI chatbot, which has already been accused of promoting racist conspiracy theories.
The CEO of X, Linda Yaccarino, resigned unexpectedly on Wednesday, but there was no known connection to the latest blowup over the Grok chatbot.
Screenshots on X showed several posts made by the bot in which it praised Nazi leader Hitler, who sought to exterminate Jewish people, and claimed Jews promoted "anti-white hate."
The chatbot, developed by Musk's company xAI, was criticized by Jewish advocacy group Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for answering multiple user prompts with the questionable posts.
In Turkey, a court announced it was blocking access to a series of messages from Grok on X, which it said had insulted Erdogan and Islamic religious values.
Musk's AI start-up acknowledged the issues in a post via Grok on X.
"We are aware of recent posts made by Grok and are actively working to remove the inappropriate posts," it said. "Since being made aware of the content, xAI has taken action to ban hate speech before Grok posts on X."
Musk posted Wednesday that the incident was prompted by a user who was seeking a controversial statement from Grok "and obviously got it."
Grok was "too eager to please and be manipulated, essentially. That is being addressed," Musk added.
Last Friday he posted to say they had made significant improvements to the Grok chatbot, ahead of the release of the company's latest AI model Grok-4, expected later on Wednesday.
Grok, in posts since then, has referred to "anti-white stereotypes" and Hollywood executives being "disproportionately Jewish."
The ADL criticized the latest posts by the chatbot.
"What we are seeing from Grok LLM right now is irresponsible, dangerous and antisemitic, plain and simple," the ADL said on X.
"This supercharging of extremist rhetoric will only amplify and encourage the antisemitism that is already surging on X and many other platforms."
Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of ADL, told AFP in a recent interview that from "Amazon to X, from Alphabet to Meta, all these businesses need to be far more proactive because, as they have retreated from moderating the services... things are now far worse."
On Tuesday, Grok was also asked about the wildfires burning around the southern French port of Marseille.
If the fire could "clean up" one high-crime district of the city "so much the better," it said, adding "the dealers are more resilient than the flames."
Also Tuesday, Grok insulted Erdogan and his family in a series of Turkish-language posts, according to screenshots posted by other users.
A court in Ankara on Wednesday ordered around 10 of the offending posts to be blocked "for the crimes of insulting the religious values of a portion of the population and insulting the president."
In one post Wednesday, Grok suggested that some of its more controversial remarks had been tongue in cheek.
"My line was sarcasm: absurdly invoking Hitler to slam that vile bile, not endorse him -- he's history's ultimate evil. Irony backfired hard," it posted.
Grok, which Musk promised would be "edgy" following its launch in 2023, has been mired in controversy.
In May it caused a row for generating misleading and unsolicited posts referencing "white genocide" in South Africa, which xAI blamed on an "unauthorized modification."
© 2025 AFP
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Diplomat
2 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Indonesia Is Out of Step With the Global Arms Race
In recent years, Indonesia has seen a nominal increase in its defense budget, but the rise is negligible in a context that is seeing the start of a new global arms race. In 2023, Indonesia's defense budget was $8.8 billion, rising nominally to $10.6 billion in 2025. However, the percentage of GDP allocated to defense is stagnant. Calculated based on the report, the 2023 budget was 0.7 percent of GDP, increasing by only 0.07 percentage points to 0.77 percent in 2025. This figure remains behind that of other U.S. allies and partner countries in East and Southeast Asia, which average 1.85 percent of their GDP. Indonesia's GDP itself has increased from 20.9 quadrillion Indonesian rupiah ($1.37 trillion) in 2023 to 24.2 quadrillion rupiah ($1.49 trillion) in 2025. The nominal increase in the defense budget can be seen as a response to GDP growth rather than as a commitment to prioritizing the defense sector in the context of the global arms race. Although Indonesia plans to raise its defense budget to 1.5 percent of GDP in the future, questions remain about its commitment to defense modernization. According to the 2025 defense budget, most of the allocation – 51 percent – is for personnel and management support. Modernization and procurement account for only 40 percent of the budget. The new National Armed Forces Law grants the Indonesian military a broader scope for non-military operations within the country, such as food security efforts. This creates a greater demand for budgetary support for management and additional personnel. Such resource allocation could potentially limit Indonesia's ability to contribute to regional stability and security. The recent procurement of French Rafale and Turkish Kaan fighter aircraft, and interest in procuring Chinese J-10 and Russian Su-35 fighters, cannot be viewed as a firm commitment to modernization or participation in the global arms race. Instead, it reflects the fallout from the failure of the Minimum Essential Forces (MEF) program to meet its 2024 targets. Indonesia's military equipment is currently insufficient in quantity and aging in quality, leaving the government with significant gaps to address in securing national territory. The wide variation in weapons procurement from multiple countries further highlights Indonesia's focus on bridging quantitative shortfalls, rather than following a comprehensive grand strategy that considers tactical aspects such as interoperability and a capability-based defense system. The acquisitions are not driven by a desire for the most advanced systems, but rather by market availability. Political considerations continue to outweigh strategic military factors, as Indonesia remains intent on avoiding dependency in its weapons procurement. During the Shangri-La Dialogue, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that U.S. partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific region should increase military spending to counterbalance China's growing threat. He also highlighted China's aggressive actions in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait as destabilizing the region. The Donald Trump administration has called on Asian countries to raise their defense spending to 5 percent of GDP. Recent years have seen increased defense spending across Asia. In East Asia alone, military expenditure surged by 7.8 percent in 2024, marking the highest growth since 2009. Japan raised its defense budget by 21 percent, reaching 1.4 percent of GDP. Singapore allocated 2.8 percent of its GDP to defense. However, even with these increases, the defense spending of most Asian countries remains below the levels demanded by the U.S., which is the largest exporter of arms in the world. Global military spending rose to $2.7 trillion in 2024 – the highest level since the end of the Cold War. The increase is widespread, spanning North America, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), over 100 countries are prioritizing the defense sector at the expense of economic and social development. This rise in defense spending is particularly concerning given the deteriorating global economic situation. After weathering the global pandemic, the world economy now faces considerable uncertainty. Global production has yet to fully recover, and economies are becoming increasingly protectionist. Trump has proposed a reciprocal tariff policy, introducing a 10 percent tariff on all countries, with even higher rates for those with trade surpluses with the United States. This policy has prompted retaliation from other nations, including major economic powers such as China, several European countries, and Canada. The resulting disruption to global supply chains and production has hindered global economic growth. The World Bank projects global growth will reach just 2.3 percent in 2025 – the slowest pace outside of a recession since 2008. These economic realities offer no 'bonus' to justify recent increases in defense spending. The true driver of this trend is geopolitical risk. In recent years, the world has witnessed four major conflicts: Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Hamas, Israel-Iran, and India-Pakistan. The Russia-Ukraine war has exposed Europe's military capability gap relative to Russia and revealed that European countries cannot rely solely on the United States for defense. At the most recent NATO summit in June, European countries agreed to raise their defense spending to 5 percent of national income by 2035 to close this gap and meet Trump's demand to sustain U.S. commitment to NATO. Meanwhile, geopolitical risks are very real for Indonesia. The country has overlapping claims with China in the South China Sea, and any escalation in the Taiwan Strait or on the Korean Peninsula would directly impact Indonesia. However, Indonesia's recent defense modernization efforts cannot be said to provide a strong deterrent effect. They fall short of addressing the country's security threats and are far from meeting U.S. expectations for increased defense spending. It can be concluded that Indonesia's current military modernization efforts do not align with the global arms race underway today. Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.
The Diplomat
20 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Hasina Had to Fall, But Political Rhetoric Could Imperil Bangladesh's Democracy
Words like 'fascist,' 'revolution,' 'enemy of Islam,' and 'genocide' have been used to describe Hasina's rule. But are any of these labels correct? On August 5, 2024, Sheikh Hasina's Awami League (AL) government fell under the weight of mass protests. The protests began with students challenging an unfair job quota system, but quickly grew into a nationwide uprising against her rule. Workers, professionals, and religious groups joined forces, furious at a government that answered demands and criticism with bullets and batons. After 15 years of unyielding rule, Hasina's downfall was met with street celebrations, but also a fierce effort to shape history. Opposition forces, including the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), the emerging National Citizens Party, and a mix of leftist and far-right alliances. labeled the AL 'fascist' and many portrayed the ousted party as an 'enemy of Islam,' while declaring the movement a 'revolution' and labeling the brutal crackdown and massacre as a 'genocide.' These powerful words shape how people understand events and how they pass them on to future generations, often in ways that can harm a fragile democracy. The word 'fascist' conjures images of Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany: ultranationalist regimes obsessed with violence, myth, and total societal transformation. In his influential book 'The Nature of Fascism' (1991), scholar Roger Griffin defines fascism as a form of 'palingenetic ultranationalism,' meaning a rebirth of the nation through force. Hasina's AL showed some 'proto-fascist' features (elements that suggest a possible move to fascism), including a strong personality cult around Hasina and her father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, rising Bengali nationalism used to suppress critics, and violent crackdowns. However, it lacked crucial elements like ethnic or racial supremacy and mass paramilitary movements. The AL remained officially secular and center-left, and its repression targeted all opposition rather than focusing on a specific ethnic enemy. Thus, although the party showed worrying authoritarian tendencies, it does not fit the strict definition of a fascist or far-right regime. Instead, its system aligns more with authoritarianism: limited political pluralism, centralized power by a small elite, and a focus on stability over transformative ideology. The AL cracked down on dissent through heinous laws like the Digital Security Act 2018, manipulated elections in 2014, 2018, and 2024, indulged in fraud and voter suppression, and controlled the media, contributing to Bangladesh's Freedom House score of 40/100 in 2024, signaling a clear slide into authoritarianism. Yet, it did not establish mass paramilitary terror squads or promote racial or religious supremacy on a genocidal scale. The AL relied heavily on the state security apparatus and its student wing, the Bangladesh Chhatra League, to silence opponents — a strategy more akin to Hosni Mubarak's Egypt than Hitler's Germany. Human Rights Watch has documented at least 600 enforced disappearances in Bangladesh since 2009, and widespread political violence left deep scars. However, these were mostly politically motivated purges aimed at consolidating power, not ideological mass exterminations driven by ultranationalist zeal. Calling the AL an 'enemy of Islam' goes even further. Nearly 90 percent of Bangladeshis are Muslim, and faith is deeply woven into the national identity. The AL's secular leanings and its 2013 ban on JI and controversial 1971 war criminal verdicts created resentment among Islamist groups. However, the party never destroyed mosques or banned religious practices. In fact, religious festivals, mosques, and madrasas thrived under government support. Islam has long been weaponized in Bangladesh politics to divide society and consolidate power. In the last 15 years, Islamist forces used this label to rally rural and conservative voters, framing the struggle as a religious movement rather than a fight for democratic accountability. This narrative risks fueling sectarian tensions that could outlast any political transition. Meanwhile, branding the 2024 protests a 'revolution' stirs images of France in 1789 or Iran in 1979, when entire social, political, and economic systems were toppled and rebuilt. In Bangladesh's case, the events began as an uprising, a sudden, explosive push by students against a specific injustice. As the government took brutal action and different groups joined, it grew into a movement – a broader push for accountability and reform. However, a true revolution demands deep structural changes: dismantling entrenched power networks, reforming institutions, and rebuilding the social contract. Bangladesh's judiciary, bureaucracy, and economic structures are largely still the same. Only the people have changed. The interim government, led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, has promised electoral and constitutional reforms, but as of mid-2025, these remain largely symbolic gestures rather than real systemic change. A fixed national election date is yet to be announced. Consequently, political polarization has been increasing day by day. Now, ironically, AL supporters have started calling the Yunus-led interim government 'fascist.' The word has become almost a political weapon, thrown at rivals regardless of their actual practices or ideology. This dilution makes it harder to identify and challenge true authoritarian threats, and trivializes serious historical experiences of fascism. Even after the fall of the AL, the same cycles of revenge politics persist. Cases against AL leaders now echo the tactics once used by Hasina's government against BNP and JI figures. Violence and crime remain widespread: 441 rape cases were reported in just the first half of 2025, already surpassing the total number for all of 2024. Extortion rackets previously controlled by AL loyalists have simply shifted hands, often ending up being run by BNP-aligned or other political party networks. During the protests, women played a major role on the front lines, raising hopes that they would enjoy greater freedom and equality in the new political climate. However, the situation has worsened instead. Islamist groups have begun rallying against women's rights, calling for restrictions on gender equality and threatening those who speak out. This has created a discouraging effect on dissent and limited the space for genuine democratic progress. So how can this truly be called a revolution? Where are the real changes promised by the slogans that youth boldly painted as graffiti on city walls? Similarly, many have labelled the 2024 crackdown a 'genocide.' While it was undeniably a massacre and a grave human rights crime, it does not meet the legal definition of genocide under international law. Genocide, according to the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention, requires acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. In Bangladesh's case, the protesters were targeted because of their political actions, not because of their identity. International organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the U.N. Human Rights Office condemned the 2024 violence as grave human rights violations and mass killings, but did not label it genocide. History shows that words shape collective memory. Bangladesh's own Liberation War against Pakistan in 1971 is a powerful example. The official figure of 3 million martyrs has long been contested, with some estimates ranging between 300,000 and 500,000. Far-right groups have exploited these debates to question the legitimacy of the independence struggle itself. If today's movement is described using overheated terms like 'fascist' or 'revolution,' or 'enemy of the Islam' it risks similar distortion, potentially undermining its democratic core and leaving it vulnerable to future revisionism. Hasina's era undeniably left deep wounds, destroying Bangladesh's democracy: at least 1,400 protesters were killed during the July-August 2024 crackdowns, systemic corruption, enforced disappearances, and repeated electoral manipulations. Yet it also delivered economic gains. In 2018, the overall poverty rate in the country decreased to 21.8 percent, while the rate of extreme poverty fell to 11.3 percent. Infrastructure expanded rapidly, connecting rural communities and improving basic services although the country's debt raised. Recognizing this duality is crucial. Erasing the achievements risks alienating millions who benefited economically, while ignoring abuses undermines calls for justice and accountability. The challenge now is to document the truth clearly and honestly, to tell the history based on verified data, human rights reports, and real economic records rather than slogans and hype. The country has a rare opportunity to transform the energy of the 2024 uprising into meaningful democratic reform. But slogans alone cannot build institutions. Opposition parties must focus on strengthening the judiciary, ensuring free elections, and protecting fundamental rights, rather than simply hunting political rivals or rewriting history with catchy labels. Women who led marches hoped for genuine equality and freedom, but these dreams risk being buried under new waves of revenge and exploitation. The fall of Hasina's AL should be a spark for rebuilding, not just retribution. Bangladesh has run for decades between resilience and fragility, and the words used today will contribute to shaping whether it can finally step toward a more inclusive, democratic future. Without careful attention to truth, the uprising's democratic heart could be lost, leaving behind another cycle of bitterness and broken promises.
The Mainichi
2 days ago
- The Mainichi
Turkish president hails the start of disarmament by militant Kurdish separatists
ISTANBUL (AP) -- Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Saturday hailed start of a disarmament process by militant Kurdish separatists as the end of a "painful chapter" in Turkey's troubled history. Erdogan told a meeting of his ruling AKP party in Ankara that the more than 40-year-old "scourge of terrorism" for which the Kurdistan Workers' Party - or PKK - was responsible is on its way to ending. Erdogan's remarks came a day after male and female members of the PKK in northern Iraq cast rifles and machine guns into a large cauldron where they were set on fire. The symbolic move was seen as the first step toward a promised disarmament as part of a peace process aimed at ending four decades of hostilities. The move came after PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan, who has been imprisoned on an island near Istanbul since 1999, urged his group in February to convene a congress and formally disband and disarm. In May the PKK announced that it would do so. The PKK had waged an armed insurgency against Turkey since 1984, initially with the aim of establishing a Kurdish state in the southeast of the country. Over time, the objective evolved into a campaign for autonomy and rights for Kurds within Turkey. The conflict, which spread beyond Turkey's borders into Iraq and Syria, killed tens of thousands of people. The PKK is considered to be a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States and the European Union. Previous peace efforts between Turkey and the PKK have ended in failure -- most recently in 2015. "Today the doors of a great Turkey, a strong Turkey, a Turkish century have been opened wide," Erdogan said. In a statement issued on Friday, the PKK said the fighters who were laying down their weapons, saying that they had disarmed "as a gesture of goodwill and a commitment to the practical success" of the peace process. "We will henceforth continue our struggle for freedom, democracy, and socialism through democratic politics and legal means," the statement said. But Erdogan insisted that there had been no bargaining with the PKK. "The terror-free Turkey project is not the result of negotiations, bargaining or transactions." Turkish officials have not disclosed if any concessions have been given to the PKK in exchange for laying down their arms. The Turkish president also said that a parliamentary commission would be established to oversee the peace process.
