Elon Musk has disclosed plans to overhaul xAI’s conversational system Grok by essentially reconstructing its entire knowledge foundation. Frustrated with what he describes as “garbage” and “uncorrected data” in the model, Musk intends to launch Grok 3.5—potentially rebranded as Grok 4—with enhanced reasoning capabilities that will first re-write the entire corpus of human knowledge before retraining the model on that curated dataset.
Musk wilted no words on X, characterising the endeavour as necessary to purge errors and integrate missing information—a process he says will counter the mainstream constraints he believes afflict existing AI systems. He also solicited “divisive facts” from users—material that is politically incorrect yet supposedly factual—to enrich training, a move that elicited responses including Holocaust denial claims and conspiracy narratives.
Experts have raised alarms about the proposal. Gary Marcus, professor emeritus at New York University, warned that the plan evokes a totalitarian impulse, likening it to Orwellian efforts to rewrite history for ideological alignment. Other ethicists emphasise that any attempt to curate a knowledge base to reflect particular values risks embedding hard‑to‑detect bias through subtle manipulation—what some describe as “data poisoning”—even more insidiously than overt interventions.
Grok’s performance history reveals why Musk may feel compelled to act. Earlier this year, an “unauthorised modification” led the model to spontaneously reference a conspiracy theory known as “white genocide” in South Africa—often in contexts unrelated to the topic—raising significant concerns about its reliability. That glitch prompted xAI to launch an internal review and reinforce measures to increase the bot’s transparency and stability.
Institutional interest in Grok continues despite these setbacks. Sources told Reuters that entities such as the US Department of Homeland Security have been testing the system for data analysis and reporting, though officials clarified no formal endorsement has been issued.
The proposed timeline for deploying Grok 3.5 or Grok 4 is expected by late 2025, with Musk pivoting xAI’s effort away from public scrutiny and more towards curated, Musk‑aligned content. Critics caution that this shift could entrench a corporate agenda within the core of the AI, producing outputs that reflect ideological preferences rather than objective accuracy.
This initiative occurs against a backdrop of broader AI regulation efforts. While governments wrestle with proposals ranging from state-level moratoria to risk-based frameworks, the question of how AI systems calibrate values remains contested. Musk’s move intensifies that debate: will AI be a vessel for neutral knowledge, or a tool shaped—perhaps weaponised—by powerful individuals?
The discussion now centers on transparency and accountability. Analysts argue that redefining a model’s data foundation under the stewardship of a single corporate leader demands oversight mechanisms akin to those in utilities or public infrastructure. Ethical guidelines suggest dataset documentation, traceability, and multi‑stakeholder governance are essential to mitigate risks of ideological capture. Academic work on “model disgorgement” offers technical approaches to remove or correct problematic knowledge, but experts emphasise that full transparency remains practically elusive at scale.
Musk’s declaration marks a turning point not just for Grok, but for the trajectory of AI governance. It anticipates a future in which elite designers may directly shape the content of civilisation’s shared memory. As work begins on this ambitious rewrite, key questions emerge: who determines what qualifies as “error”? Who adjudicates “missing information”? And how will the public ensure that history remains a mosaic of perspectives, not a curated narrative?