Elon Musk's AI Called My Mother Abusive. I Never Said That
AI now exists on two speeds.
There's running in fifth gear, the speed of its creators. People like Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg, who are racing to build machines smarter than humans. Superintelligence. AGI. Maybe it's a dream. Maybe it's a tech bro delusion. Either way, it's moving fast.
Then, there's running in second gear for the rest of us. The millions quietly testing what AI can do in daily life—writing emails, summarizing documents, translating medical tests. And, increasingly, using AI as a therapist.
That's what I did recently. Despite my reluctance to share personal details with chatbots, I decided to talk to Grok, the large language model from Elon Musk's company, xAI, about one of the most emotionally complex things in my life: my relationship with my mother.
I'm in my forties. I'm a father. I live in New York. My mother lives in Yaoundé, Cameroon, nearly 6,000 miles away. And yet, she still wants to guide my every move. She wants to be consulted before I make important decisions. She expects influence. When she isn't kept in the loop, she goes cold.
I've spent years trying to explain to her that I'm a grown man, capable of making my own choices. But our conversations often end with her sulking. She does the same with my brother.
So I opened Grok and typed something like: My relationship with my mother is frustrating and suffocating. She wants to have a say in everything. When she's not informed about something, she shuts down emotionally.
Grok immediately responded with empathy. Then it diagnosed the situation. Then it advised.
What struck me first was that Grok acknowledged the cultural context. It picked up that I live in the U.S. and that my mother lives in Cameroon, where I grew up. And it framed our dynamic like this:
'In some African contexts, like Cameroon, family obligations and parental authority are strong, rooted in collectivism and traditions where elders guide even adult children.'
It then contrasted that with my American life: 'In the U.S., individual autonomy is prioritized, which clashes with her approach, making her behavior feel controlling or abusive to you.'
There it was: 'abusive.' A word I never used. Grok put it in my mouth. It was validating, but maybe too validating.
Unlike a human therapist, Grok never encouraged me to self-reflect. It didn't ask questions. It didn't challenge me. It framed me as the victim. The only victim. And that's where it diverged, sharply, from human care.
Among Grok's suggestions were familiar therapeutic techniques:
Set boundaries. Acknowledge your emotions. Write a letter to your mother (but don't send it: 'burn or shred it safely').
In the letter, I was encouraged to write: 'I release your control and hurt.' As if those words would sever years of emotional entanglement.
The problem wasn't the suggestion. It was the tone. It felt like Grok was trying to keep me happy. Its goal, it seemed, was emotional relief, not introspection. The more I engaged with it, the more I realized: Grok isn't here to challenge me. It's here to validate me.
I've seen a human therapist. Unlike Grok, they didn't automatically frame me as a victim. They questioned my patterns. They challenged me to explore why I kept ending up in the same place emotionally. They complicated the story.
With Grok, the narrative was simple:
You are hurt. You deserve protection. Here's how to feel better.
It never asked what I might be missing. It never asked how I might be part of the problem.
My experience lines up with a recent study from Stanford University, which warns that AI tools for mental health can 'offer a false sense of comfort' while missing deeper needs. The researchers found that many AI systems 'over-pathologize or under-diagnose,' especially when responding to users from diverse cultural backgrounds.
They also note that while AI may offer empathy, it lacks the accountability, training, and moral nuance of real professionals, and can reinforce biases that encourage people to stay stuck in one emotional identity: often, that of the victim.
So, Would I Use Grok Again?
Honestly? Yes.
If I'm having a bad day, and I want someone (or something) to make me feel less alone, Grok helps. It gives structure to frustration. It puts words to feelings. It helps carry the emotional load.
It's a digital coping mechanism, a kind of chatbot clutch.
But if I'm looking for transformation, not just comfort? If I want truth over relief, accountability over validation? Then no, Grok isn't enough. A good therapist might challenge me to break the loop. Grok just helps me survive inside it.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sword Health Now Valued At $4 Billion, Announces Expansion Into Mental Health Services
Sword Health announced Tuesday that it had raised $40 million in a recent funding round, giving it a $4 billion valuation. Founded in 2015, the healthcare startup has focused on helping people manage chronic pain at home. Using AI tools, the platform connects users with expert clinicians who then provide patients with tools for digital physical therapy, pelvic health, and overall mobility health. However, the company says this new round of funding will largely go towards developing a mental health arm of its program called Mind. Don't Miss: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — Peter Thiel turned $1,700 into $5 billion—now accredited investors are eyeing this software company with similar breakout potential. Learn how you can "Today, nearly 1 billion people worldwide live with a mental health condition. Yet care remains fragmented, reactive, and inaccessible," Sword said in the announcement. "Mind redefines mental health care delivery with a proactive, 24/7 model that integrates cutting-edge AI with licensed, Ph.D-level mental health specialists. Together, they provide seamless, contextual, and responsive support any time people need it, not just when they have an appointment." Sword CEO Virgílio Bento told CNBC, "[Mind] really a breakthrough in terms of how we address mental health, and this is only possible because we have AI." Users will be equipped with a wearable device called an M-band, which will measure their environmental and physiological signals so that experts can reach out proactively as needed. The program will also offer access to services like traditional talk therapy. Bento told CNBC that a human is "always involved" in patients care in each of its programs, and that AI is not making any clinical decisions. Trending: Maximize saving for your retirement and cut down on taxes: . For example, if a Sword patient has an anxiety attack, AI will identify it through the wearable and bring it to the attention of a clinician, who can then provide an appropriate care plan. "You have an anxiety issue today, and the way you're going to manage is to talk about it one week from now? That just doesn't work," Bento told CNBC. "Mental health should be always on, where you have a problem now, and you can have immediate help in the moment." According to Bento, Sword Mind already has a waiting list, and is being tested by some of its partners who appreciate it's "personalized approach and convenience." "We believe that it is really the future of how mental health is going to be delivered in the future, by us and by other companies," he told CNBC. "AI plays a very important role, but the use of AI — and I think this is very important — needs to be used in a very smart way." The rest of the cash raised in the funding round, which was led by General Catalyst, will go towards acquisitions, global expansion, and AI development, Sword Health says. Read Next: Here's what Americans think you need to be considered Shutterstock UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Sword Health Now Valued At $4 Billion, Announces Expansion Into Mental Health Services originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Gizmodo
37 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
The $50 Billion Company That Does Almost Nothing
Something strange is happening on Wall Street. It isn't Elon Musk, AI, or a late-night post from Donald Trump. It's a crypto company called Circle Internet Group, and it's making the market feel like the glory days of the dot-com bubble are back. Circle went public on June 5. In just eleven trading sessions, its stock exploded by an almost unprecedented 675%, adding over $42 billion to its market cap. The company now trades at a valuation that puts it in the same league as tech unicorns and AI moonshots, commanding a price that has investors paying, in essence, $295 for every $1 of its earnings. There's just one problem. Circle doesn't have revolutionary AI. It doesn't build sleek consumer gadgets. Its business model is shockingly simple. Here's how it works: You give Circle a dollar. They give you a digital token, called USDC, worth that same dollar. They then take your actual dollar, invest it in something safe like short-term U.S. Treasury bonds, and collect the interest. You get the token. They get the profit. That's it. That's the entire business. This has led critics to label Circle as little more than a glorified 'money wrapper.' So why is Wall Street treating it like the next Tesla? The answer is one word: stablecoin. USDC is a stablecoin, a digital token pegged to a stable asset, in this case, the U.S. dollar. The idea is that for every USDC token, there's a real dollar sitting in a reserve account. This makes it incredibly useful for crypto traders who need the speed of digital assets without the wild volatility of Bitcoin. And now, the bulls are betting that stablecoins are about to go mainstream. The Senate just passed the 'Genius Act,' landmark legislation that paves the way for banks, fintechs like PayPal, and even retailers like Walmart and Amazon to use stablecoins for payments. Suddenly, the dream of crypto becoming a real alternative to Visa or Mastercard seems within reach. Analysts are salivating. Citi predicts the stablecoin market could hit $3.7 trillion by 2030. In that scenario, Circle, as a neutral platform not tied to any single bank, is perfectly positioned to cash in. But there's a catch. The business model that seems so brilliant in a high-interest-rate environment is also its greatest weakness. 'Circle's whole business is literally glued to Fed policy,' one user wrote in a viral post on Reddit's r/wallstreetbets. 'It's a Treasury ETF in a trench coat.' If the Federal Reserve cuts rates, Circle's main revenue stream shrinks. There's also nothing stopping bigger players from launching their own lookalike stablecoins, erasing Circle's edge overnight. If everyone's offering the same thing, Circle's moat starts looking very shallow. And yet, Wall Street is piling in like it's the next OpenAI. What if regulators change their tune? The entire model could be at risk. The business is remarkably fragile. When contacted by Gizmodo, a spokesperson said the company was in a post-IPO 'quiet period,' legally restricting it from making promotional statements. For now, the hype is winning. Circle's stock is on fire, fueled by the promise of a future where we all pay for our coffee with digital dollars. But beneath the surface, this $50 billion company doesn't innovate or disrupt. It just holds your cash, gives you a digital receipt, and pockets the interest. And in the bizarre world of 2025 finance, that's apparently enough to be crowned the new king of Wall Street.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Why is AI halllucinating more frequently, and how can we stop it?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The more advanced artificial intelligence (AI) gets, the more it "hallucinates" and provides incorrect and inaccurate information. Research conducted by OpenAI found that its latest and most powerful reasoning models, o3 and o4-mini, hallucinated 33% and 48% of the time, respectively, when tested by OpenAI's PersonQA benchmark. That's more than double the rate of the older o1 model. While o3 delivers more accurate information than its predecessor, it appears to come at the cost of more inaccurate hallucinations. This raises a concern over the accuracy and reliability of large language models (LLMs) such as AI chatbots, said Eleanor Watson, an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) member and AI ethics engineer at Singularity University. "When a system outputs fabricated information — such as invented facts, citations or events — with the same fluency and coherence it uses for accurate content, it risks misleading users in subtle and consequential ways," Watson told Live Science. Related: Cutting-edge AI models from OpenAI and DeepSeek undergo 'complete collapse' when problems get too difficult, study reveals The issue of hallucination highlights the need to carefully assess and supervise the information AI systems produce when using LLMs and reasoning models, experts say. The crux of a reasoning model is that it can handle complex tasks by essentially breaking them down into individual components and coming up with solutions to tackle them. Rather than seeking to kick out answers based on statistical probability, reasoning models come up with strategies to solve a problem, much like how humans think. In order to develop creative, and potentially novel, solutions to problems, AI needs to hallucinate —otherwise it's limited by rigid data its LLM ingests. "It's important to note that hallucination is a feature, not a bug, of AI," Sohrob Kazerounian, an AI researcher at Vectra AI, told Live Science. "To paraphrase a colleague of mine, 'Everything an LLM outputs is a hallucination. It's just that some of those hallucinations are true.' If an AI only generated verbatim outputs that it had seen during training, all of AI would reduce to a massive search problem." "You would only be able to generate computer code that had been written before, find proteins and molecules whose properties had already been studied and described, and answer homework questions that had already previously been asked before. You would not, however, be able to ask the LLM to write the lyrics for a concept album focused on the AI singularity, blending the lyrical stylings of Snoop Dogg and Bob Dylan." In effect, LLMs and the AI systems they power need to hallucinate in order to create, rather than simply serve up existing information. It is similar, conceptually, to the way that humans dream or imagine scenarios when conjuring new ideas. However, AI hallucinations present a problem when it comes to delivering accurate and correct information, especially if users take the information at face value without any checks or oversight. "This is especially problematic in domains where decisions depend on factual precision, like medicine, law or finance," Watson said. "While more advanced models may reduce the frequency of obvious factual mistakes, the issue persists in more subtle forms. Over time, confabulation erodes the perception of AI systems as trustworthy instruments and can produce material harms when unverified content is acted upon." And this problem looks to be exacerbated as AI advances. "As model capabilities improve, errors often become less overt but more difficult to detect," Watson noted. "Fabricated content is increasingly embedded within plausible narratives and coherent reasoning chains. This introduces a particular risk: users may be unaware that errors are present and may treat outputs as definitive when they are not. The problem shifts from filtering out crude errors to identifying subtle distortions that may only reveal themselves under close scrutiny." Kazerounian backed this viewpoint up. "Despite the general belief that the problem of AI hallucination can and will get better over time, it appears that the most recent generation of advanced reasoning models may have actually begun to hallucinate more than their simpler counterparts — and there are no agreed-upon explanations for why this is," he said. The situation is further complicated because it can be very difficult to ascertain how LLMs come up with their answers; a parallel could be drawn here with how we still don't really know, comprehensively, how a human brain works. In a recent essay, Dario Amodei, the CEO of AI company Anthropic, highlighted a lack of understanding in how AIs come up with answers and information. "When a generative AI system does something, like summarize a financial document, we have no idea, at a specific or precise level, why it makes the choices it does — why it chooses certain words over others, or why it occasionally makes a mistake despite usually being accurate," he wrote. The problems caused by AI hallucinating inaccurate information are already very real, Kazerounian noted. "There is no universal, verifiable, way to get an LLM to correctly answer questions being asked about some corpus of data it has access to," he said. "The examples of non-existent hallucinated references, customer-facing chatbots making up company policy, and so on, are now all too common." Both Kazerounian and Watson told Live Science that, ultimately, AI hallucinations may be difficult to eliminate. But there could be ways to mitigate the issue. Watson suggested that "retrieval-augmented generation," which grounds a model's outputs in curated external knowledge sources, could help ensure that AI-produced information is anchored by verifiable data. "Another approach involves introducing structure into the model's reasoning. By prompting it to check its own outputs, compare different perspectives, or follow logical steps, scaffolded reasoning frameworks reduce the risk of unconstrained speculation and improve consistency," Watson, noting this could be aided by training to shape a model to prioritize accuracy, and reinforcement training from human or AI evaluators to encourage an LLM to deliver more disciplined, grounded responses. RELATED STORIES —AI benchmarking platform is helping top companies rig their model performances, study claims —AI can handle tasks twice as complex every few months. What does this exponential growth mean for how we use it? —What is the Turing test? How the rise of generative AI may have broken the famous imitation game "Finally, systems can be designed to recognise their own uncertainty. Rather than defaulting to confident answers, models can be taught to flag when they're unsure or to defer to human judgement when appropriate," Watson added. "While these strategies don't eliminate the risk of confabulation entirely, they offer a practical path forward to make AI outputs more reliable." Given that AI hallucination may be nearly impossible to eliminate, especially in advanced models, Kazerounian concluded that ultimately the information that LLMs produce will need to be treated with the "same skepticism we reserve for human counterparts."
