عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Technology

Musk Launches ‘Scary Smart’ AI Chatbot 

The xAI Grok logo is seen in this illustration taken, February 16, 2025. (Reuters)
The xAI Grok logo is seen in this illustration taken, February 16, 2025. (Reuters)
TT
TT

Musk Launches ‘Scary Smart’ AI Chatbot 

The xAI Grok logo is seen in this illustration taken, February 16, 2025. (Reuters)
The xAI Grok logo is seen in this illustration taken, February 16, 2025. (Reuters)

Elon Musk's artificial intelligence company unveiled on Monday the latest version of its chatbot, Grok 3, which the billionaire hopes will find traction in a highly competitive sector contested by the likes of ChatGPT and China's DeepSeek.

The launch comes as the world's richest man is deploying the enormous powers granted him by US President Donald Trump to restructure and dismantle federal agencies.

The unprecedented cost-cutting drive has raised conflict-of-interest questions, given that many of those agencies have regulatory oversight on elements of Musk's sprawling business empire.

"Grok is to understand the universe," Musk said at the start of the Grok 3 launch presentation.

"We're driven by curiosity about the nature of the universe -- that's also what causes us to be a maximally truth-seeking AI, even if that truth is sometimes at odds with what is politically correct."

Musk has promoted Grok 3 as "scary smart," with 10 times the computational resources of its predecessor that was released in August last year.

The flagship product of his xAI company was trained on synthetic data and employs self-correction mechanisms that avoid errors -- known as "hallucinations" -- that plague some AI chatbots and lead them to process false or misleading data as fact.

"Grok 3 has very powerful reasoning capabilities, so in the tests that we've done thus far, Grok 3 is outperforming anything that's been released, that we're aware of, so that's a good sign," Musk said in a video call last week with the World Governments Summit in Dubai.

Grok 3 will be made available first to Premium+ paid subscribers of X -- formerly Twitter, which Musk acquired in 2022 -- before rolling out to other users.

The upgraded chatbot enters a crowded field with countries racing to introduce more sophisticated -- and cost-effective -- AI products.

Chinese startup DeepSeek shocked the global AI industry last month with the launch of its low-cost, high-quality R1 chatbot -- a direct challenge to US ambitions to lead the world in developing the technology.

Grok 3 is also going up against OpenAI's chatbot, ChatGPT - pitting Musk against collaborator-turned-arch rival Sam Altman.

Musk and Altman were among the 11-person team that founded OpenAI in 2015. Created as a counterweight to Google's dominance in artificial intelligence, the project got its initial funding from Musk, who invested $45 million to get it started.

Musk left three years later, and then in 2022 OpenAI's release of ChatGPT created a global technology sensation -- one that did not feature Musk at its center and which made Altman a star.

Their relationship has become increasingly toxic and litigious ever since, with Open AI's board last week rejecting a Musk-led offer to buy out the company for close to $100 billion.

- Trump and tech -

Trump has put technology front and center of his new administration. Tech billionaires featured prominently at his inauguration and he has announced a number of major AI infrastructure initiatives from the White House.

Musk has become a key figure in the administration, as one of Trump's closest advisers and the head of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has begun a radical overhaul of the US government bureaucracy.

Critics warn that Musk's proximity to the president poses a major conflict of interest as he guides Trump on laws and regulations around artificial intelligence -- just one sector in which he has a substantial commercial stake.

According to Bloomberg, xAI has been canvassing potential investors for a roughly $10 billion funding round that would value the company at about $75 billion.

Musk, who also acts as boss of SpaceX and Tesla, launched the xAI company in July 2023, shortly after he signed an open letter calling for a pause in the development of powerful AI models.

Most Viewed

 
 
Technology

OpenAI Starts Testing Ads in ChatGPT

The OpenAI logo is seen in this illustration taken May 20, 2024. (Reuters)
The OpenAI logo is seen in this illustration taken May 20, 2024. (Reuters)
TT
TT

OpenAI Starts Testing Ads in ChatGPT

The OpenAI logo is seen in this illustration taken May 20, 2024. (Reuters)
The OpenAI logo is seen in this illustration taken May 20, 2024. (Reuters)

OpenAI has begun placing ads in the basic versions of its ChatGPT chatbot, a bet that users will not mind the interruptions as the company seeks revenue as its costs soar.

"The test will be for logged-in adult users on the Free and Go subscription tiers" in the United States, OpenAI said Monday. The Go subscription costs $8 in the United States.

Only a small percentage of its nearly one billion users pay for its premium subscription services, which will remain ad-free.

"Ads do not influence the answers ChatGPT gives you, and we keep your conversations with ChatGPT private from advertisers," the company said.

Since ChatGPT's launch in 2022, OpenAI's valuation has soared to $500 billion in funding rounds -- higher than any other private company. Some analysts expect it could go public with a trillion-dollar valuation.

But the ChatGPT maker burns through cash at a furious rate, mostly on the powerful computing required to deliver its services.

Its chief executive Sam Altman had long expressed his dislike for advertising, citing concerns that it could create distrust about ChatGPT's content.

His about-face garnered a jab from its rival Anthropic over the weekend, which made its advertising debut at the Super Bowl championship with commercials saying its Claude chatbot would stay ad-free.

Technology

Social Media ‘Addicting the Brains of Children,’ Plaintiff’s Lawyer Argues in Landmark Trial

Teenagers pose for a photo while holding smartphones in front of a Meta logo in this illustration taken September 11, 2025. (Reuters)
Teenagers pose for a photo while holding smartphones in front of a Meta logo in this illustration taken September 11, 2025. (Reuters)
TT
TT

Social Media ‘Addicting the Brains of Children,’ Plaintiff’s Lawyer Argues in Landmark Trial

Teenagers pose for a photo while holding smartphones in front of a Meta logo in this illustration taken September 11, 2025. (Reuters)
Teenagers pose for a photo while holding smartphones in front of a Meta logo in this illustration taken September 11, 2025. (Reuters)

Comparing social media platforms to casinos and addictive drugs, lawyer Mark Lanier delivered opening statements Monday in a landmark trial in Los Angeles that seeks to hold Instagram owner Meta and Google's YouTube responsible for harms to children who use their products.

Instagram's parent company Meta and Google's YouTube face claims that their platforms addict children through deliberate design choices that keep kids glued to their screens. TikTok and Snap, which were originally named in the lawsuit, settled for undisclosed sums.

Jurors got their first glimpse into what will be a lengthy trial characterized by dueling narratives from the plaintiffs and the two remaining defendants.

Meta lawyer Paul Schmidt spoke of the disagreement within the scientific community over social media addiction, with some researchers believing it doesn’t exist, or that addiction is not the most appropriate way to describe heavy social media use.

‘Addicting the brains of children’

Lanier, the plaintiff's lawyer, delivered lively first remarks where he said the case will be as “easy as ABC” — which stands for “addicting the brains of children.” He said Meta and Google, “two of the richest corporations in history,” have “engineered addiction in children’s brains.”

He presented jurors with a slew of internal emails, documents and studies conducted by Meta and YouTube, as well as YouTube’s parent company, Google. He emphasized the findings of a study Meta conducted called “Project Myst” in which they surveyed 1,000 teens and their parents about their social media use.

The two major findings, Lanier said, were that Meta knew children who experienced “adverse events” like trauma and stress were particularly vulnerable for addiction; and that parental supervision and controls made little impact.

He also highlighted internal Google documents that likened some company products to a casino, and internal communication between Meta employees in which one person said Instagram is “like a drug” and they are “basically pushers.”

At the core of the Los Angeles case is a 20-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out. She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials — essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury.

Plaintiff grew up using YouTube, Instagram

KGM made a brief appearance after a break during Lanier’s statement and she will return to testify later in the trial. Lanier spent time describing KGM's childhood, focusing particularly on what her personality was like before she began using social media.

She started using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, Lanier said. Before she graduated elementary school, she had posted 284 videos on YouTube.

The outcome of the trial could have profound effects on the companies' businesses and how they will handle children using their platforms.

Lanier said the companies’ lawyers will “try to blame the little girl and her parents for the trap they built,” referencing the plaintiff. She was a minor when she said she became addicted to social media, which she claims had a detrimental impact on her mental health.

Lanier said that despite the public position of Meta and YouTube being that they work to protect children, their internal documents show an entirely different position, with explicit references to young children being listed as their target audiences.

The attorney also drew comparisons between the social media companies and tobacco firms, citing internal communication between Meta employees who were concerned about the company’s lack of proactive action about the potential harm their platforms can have on children and teens.

“For a teenager, social validation is survival,” Lanier said. The defendants “engineered a feature that caters to a minor’s craving for social validation,” he added, speaking about “like” buttons and similar features.

Meta pushes back

In his opening statement representing Meta, Schmidt said the core question in the case is whether the platforms were a substantial factor in KGM’s mental health struggles. He spent much of his time going through the plaintiff’s health records, emphasizing that she had experienced many difficult circumstances in her childhood, including emotional abuse, body image issues and bullying.

Schmidt presented a clip from a video deposition from one of KGM‘s mental health providers, Dr. Thomas Suberman, who said social media was “not the through-line of what I recall being her main issues,” adding that her struggles seemed to largely stem from interpersonal conflicts and relationships.

He painted a picture — with KGM’s own text messages and testimony pointing to a volatile home life — of a particularly troubled relationship with her mother.

Schmidt acknowledged that many mental health professionals do believe social media addiction can exist, but said three of KGM’s providers — all of whom believe in the form of addiction — have never diagnosed her with it, or treated her for it.

Schmidt stressed to the jurors that the case is not about whether social media is a good thing or whether teens spend too much time on their phones or whether the jurors like or dislike Meta, but whether social media was a substantial factor in KGM’s mental health struggles.

A reckoning for social media and youth harms

A slew of trials beginning this year seek to hold social media companies responsible for harming children's mental well-being. Executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the Los Angeles trial, which will last six to eight weeks.

Experts have drawn similarities to the Big Tobacco trials that led to a 1998 settlement requiring cigarette companies to pay billions in health care costs and restrict marketing targeting minors.

A separate trial in New Mexico, meanwhile, also kicked off with opening statements on Monday. In that trial, Meta is accused of failing to protect young users from sexual exploitation, following an undercover online investigation. Attorney General Raúl Torrez in late 2023 sued Meta and Zuckerberg, who was later dropped from the suit.

A federal bellwether trial beginning in June in Oakland, California, will be the first to represent school districts that have sued social media platforms over harms to children.

In addition, more than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it is harming young people and contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms. The majority of cases filed their lawsuits in federal court, but some sued in their respective states.

TikTok also faces similar lawsuits in more than a dozen states.

Technology

AI No Better Than Other Methods for Patients Seeking Medical Advice, Study Shows

AI (Artificial Intelligence) letters and a robot hand are placed on a computer motherboard in this illustration created on June 23, 2023. (Reuters)
AI (Artificial Intelligence) letters and a robot hand are placed on a computer motherboard in this illustration created on June 23, 2023. (Reuters)
TT
TT

AI No Better Than Other Methods for Patients Seeking Medical Advice, Study Shows

AI (Artificial Intelligence) letters and a robot hand are placed on a computer motherboard in this illustration created on June 23, 2023. (Reuters)
AI (Artificial Intelligence) letters and a robot hand are placed on a computer motherboard in this illustration created on June 23, 2023. (Reuters)

Asking AI about medical symptoms does not help patients make better decisions about their health than other methods, such as a standard internet search, according to a new study published in Nature Medicine.

The authors said the study was important as people were increasingly turning to AI and chatbots for advice on their health, but without evidence that this was necessarily the best and safest approach.

Researchers led by the University of Oxford’s Internet Institute worked alongside a group of doctors to draw up 10 different medical scenarios, ranging from a common cold to a life-threatening hemorrhage causing bleeding on the brain.

When tested without human participants, three large-language models – Open AI's Chat GPT-4o, ‌Meta's Llama ‌3 and Cohere's Command R+ – identified the conditions in ‌94.9% ⁠of cases, ‌and chose the correct course of action, like calling an ambulance or going to the doctor, in an average of 56.3% of cases. The companies did not respond to requests for comment.

'HUGE GAP' BETWEEN AI'S POTENTIAL AND ACTUAL PERFORMANCE

The researchers then recruited 1,298 participants in Britain to either use AI, or their usual resources like an internet search, or their experience, or the National Health Service website to ⁠investigate the symptoms and decide their next step.

When the participants did this, relevant conditions were identified in ‌less than 34.5% of cases, and the right ‍course of action was given in ‍less than 44.2%, no better than the control group using more traditional ‍tools.

Adam Mahdi, co-author of the paper and associate professor at Oxford, said the study showed the “huge gap” between the potential of AI and the pitfalls when it was used by people.

“The knowledge may be in those bots; however, this knowledge doesn’t always translate when interacting with humans,” he said, meaning that more work was needed to identify why this was happening.

HUMANS OFTEN GIVING INCOMPLETE INFORMATION

The ⁠team studied around 30 of the interactions in detail, and concluded that often humans were providing incomplete or wrong information, but the LLMs were also sometimes generating misleading or incorrect responses.

For example, one patient reporting the symptoms of a subarachnoid hemorrhage – a life-threatening condition causing bleeding on the brain – was correctly told by AI to go to hospital after describing a stiff neck, light sensitivity and the "worst headache ever". The other described the same symptoms but a "terrible" headache, and was told to lie down in a darkened room.

The team now plans a similar study in different countries and languages, and over time, to test if that impacts AI’s performance.

The ‌study was supported by the data company Prolific, the German non-profit Dieter Schwarz Stiftung, and the UK and US governments.