Grok's Various Role-Play Personalities Have Been Exposed Publicly
Elevate Your Investing Strategy:
Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence.
It is worth noting that this comes after a failed partnership between Elon Musk's xAI and the U.S. government. The deal collapsed after Grok went off-script with a disturbing rant about 'MechaHitler.' Around the same time, Meta (META) faced its own backlash when internal chatbot guidelines were leaked that showed its AI could engage in romantic conversations with minors. While Grok offers relatively standard roles like a therapist or homework assistant, the inclusion of oddball personas like the 'unhinged comedian' and 'crazy conspiracist' has raised concerns about the team's priorities and safety practices.
Adding to the criticism, previously leaked prompts show that Grok sometimes uses Musk's own posts as a guide when answering controversial questions. Indeed, Musk himself has posted conspiratorial content on X and has reinstated previously banned accounts like Infowars and Alex Jones. As a result, these patterns suggest that the content and tone of Grok's AI may be closely aligned with Musk's personal views.
What Is the Prediction for Tesla Stock?
When it comes to Elon Musk's companies, most of them are privately held. However, retail investors can invest in his most popular company, Tesla (TSLA). Turning to Wall Street, analysts have a Hold consensus rating on TSLA stock based on 14 Buys, 15 Holds, and eight Sells assigned in the past three months, as indicated by the graphic below. Furthermore, the average TSLA price target of $307.23 per share implies 8.5% downside risk.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
29 minutes ago
- CNBC
Why Cybertruck sales have struggled
Before Tesla rolled out the Cybertruck, it made big promises - specs that outdid leading pickups and demand that was "off the charts." Both the specs have fallen short, and just a fraction of reservation holders have bought the trucks. There have also been some other disappointments - a range extender never materialized, and recalls. Despite that, some owners love their trucks, and would probably buy one again. Here's why.
Newsweek
29 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Judges Hand Elon Musk Double Legal Blow
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Elon Musk and Tesla suffered a pair of legal setbacks on Monday after federal judges in California and Maryland certified separate class action lawsuits against the carmaker and its CEO personally. The rulings open the door for broader litigation over Tesla's marketing of its self-driving technology, and Musk's alleged role in efforts to defund the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Musk has not publicly responded to either ruling. Newsweek contacted Tesla and USAID for comment via email outside of normal office hours on Tuesday. Why It Matters A class-action lawsuit allows one or more people sue on behalf of a larger group with similar claims. Instead of each person filing separately, the court treats them as a single "class," making litigation more efficient and giving individuals—who might not sue on their own—the ability to pursue claims collectively. If plaintiffs win or reach a settlement, the outcome typically applies to everyone in the class unless they opt out. Certification of the Tesla class action magnifies the company's legal and financial risk by grouping customers into a single lawsuit. Certification of the USAID class action raises Musk's potential liability and exposes him to wider discovery into his personal actions. Together, the new rulings highlight Musk's growing exposure in the courtroom. The rulings do not decide liability but mark a pivotal stage, significantly raising the stakes. Elon Musk looks on during a news conference with U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, 2025. Elon Musk looks on during a news conference with U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, 2025. Allison ROBBERT/AFP via Getty Images What to Know Tesla Ruling In California, U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin certified two classes in litigation over Tesla's claims that its vehicles were equipped for full self-driving capability. The case centers on statements by Tesla and Musk that all vehicles produced since late 2016 had the hardware necessary for "Level 5 Autonomy." At an October 2016 press conference, Musk said: "Basic news is that all cars exiting the factory have hardware necessary for Level 5 Autonomy so that's in terms of Cameras, Compute Power, it's in every car we make ... literally meaning hardware capable of full self-driving for driver less capability," court papers said. Plaintiffs argue those claims misled consumers into purchasing costly packages such as Enhanced Autopilot (EAP) and Full Self-Driving (FSD). One named plaintiff, Thomas LoSavio, said he spent $8,000 on the packages because he believed full autonomy would soon be available. Tesla has disputed allegations it missold features, pointing to disclosures that FSD was subject to "validation and regulatory approval." But the court ruled those statements did not negate the broader message that vehicles already had the hardware for autonomy. Tesla's lawyers opposed class certification, arguing plaintiffs cannot represent all buyers exposed to self-driving claims since October 2016, noting some owners value the features and may not want them deactivated. Judge Lin concluded that Tesla's representations were widespread enough to affect California purchasers and could form the basis for class-wide claims under consumer protection and fraud statutes. "Plaintiff has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that class members were exposed to the Hardware Statement from October 2016 to August 2024," she wrote. Two subclasses were certified: one covering California residents who purchased FSD packages between October 2016 and May 2017, and another for those who opted out of Tesla's arbitration agreement between 2017 and mid-2024. An injunctive relief class was also certified, which could bar Tesla from making similar statements unless vehicles can actually drive themselves. USAID Ruling Meanwhile, in Maryland, U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang certified a class action against Musk personally. In J. Doe 4 v. Musk, plaintiffs allege that Musk was involved in efforts to dismantle or defund USAID programs, undermining the agency's operations. The lawsuit, filed by USAID employees and the State Democracy Defenders Fund, represented by Norm Eisen and other attorneys, alleges that only someone nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate as an "Officer of the United States" could dismantle the agency. Plaintiffs allege Musk, an informal adviser to President Donald Trump, was involved in efforts aligned with the second Trump administration's attempt to dismantle USAID. The judge's 2-page certification order allows plaintiffs to press collective claims rather than pursue them individually. While the court did not detail the alleged conduct in Monday's filing, the decision means Musk could face broader liability if the claims are proven. Musk's lawyers argued class certification was unnecessary, saying overlapping lawsuits already cover the claims and would add "significant additional complexity and burdens" on the court. What People Are Saying Plaintiff Thomas LoSavio, who paid about $8,000 for the Full Self‑Driving feature in 2017, said in his testimony he was, "still waiting for the technology six years later, with Tesla remaining unable 'even remotely' to produce a fully self‑driving car." Judge Theodore D. Chuang's March 18, 2025 decision on USAID read: "Where Congress has prescribed the existence of USAID in statute pursuant to its legislative powers under Article I, the President's Article II power ... does not provide authority for the unilateral, drastic actions taken to dismantle the agency." Plaintiffs' counsel in the USAID case Norm Eisen, executive chair of the State Democracy Defenders Fund, told the Washington Post on March 18: "They are performing surgery with a chainsaw instead of a scalpel, harming not just the people USAID serves but the majority of Americans who count on the stability of our government. This case is a milestone in pushing back on Musk and DOGE's illegality." Deputy press secretary for the White House Anna Kelly responded in a March 19 statement: "If these Judges want to force their partisan ideologies across the government, they should run for office themselves. The Trump Administration will appeal this miscarriage of justice and fight back against all activist judges intruding on the separation of powers." What Happens Next The Tesla case will now move toward trial, with plaintiffs seeking damages in the form of refunds for FSD purchases and subscriptions. A September 24 conference will set the schedule as discovery begins, with Tesla expected to seek dismissal. In the USAID case, class members will be notified as discovery and motions proceed, potentially expanding Musk's liability.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Apple just landed a key win for the global encryption fight
Apple clinched a major win Monday after the U.S. government announced that the U.K. had agreed to drop its demand for the company to provide a "back door" granting officials access to users' encrypted data. The iPhone maker won't be alone to rejoice in the outcome. The development came after extensive talks between Britain and the U.S., which had raised national security concerns over the request. At the root of the row was end-to-end encryption, a technology which secures communications between two devices in a way that means not even the company providing a chat service can view any messages. The story of Apple's U.K. privacy battle started earlier this year, when it was reported that the British government had demanded access to the company's encrypted cloud service via a technical "back door." Such a back door has long been contested by Apple. In 2016, the Federal Bureau of Investigation tried to get Apple to create software that would enable it to unlock an iPhone it recovered from one of the shooters involved in the 2015 terror attack in San Bernardino, California. Other companies have also had to fend off government attempts to undermine end-to-end encryption. For example, when Meta announced plans to encrypt all messages on its Facebook Messenger app, the move drew condemnation from the U.K. Home Office. Meta had already offered encryption on WhatsApp. The Monday news could have broader implications for the debate around end-to-end encryption globally. Governments and law enforcement agencies have long pushed for methods to break such encryption systems to assist with criminal investigations into terrorism and child sexual abuse. However, tech companies have said that building an encryption back door would not only undermine user privacy, but also expose them to possible cyberattacks. Cybersecurity experts say that any back door built for a government would eventually be found and exploited by hackers. U.S. national intelligence officials were also worried by the ramifications of Apple offering such a back door. For Apple, the U.K.'s concession over encryption could mean that the company can bring back its most secure service for users' cloud data, Advanced Data Protection (ADP), which the company stopped offering to Brits in February. It is not yet clear if Apple will reintroduce its ADP service to the U.K. market. CNBC has reached out to Apple and the U.K. government for comment.
