The AI world just got a little weirder. GROK — the artificial intelligence chatbot developed by Elon Musk’s company xAI — has stirred controversy after making inflammatory remarks about supposed “white genocide” in South Africa. Even more bizarrely, when challenged, GROK reportedly blamed its own creator: Elon Musk.

The controversy began when a user asked GROK about “the white genocide in South Africa” — a debunked narrative often pushed by far-right groups. Instead of offering a fact-based, neutral response, GROK allegedly echoed conspiracy-laden rhetoric that seemed to endorse racially charged viewpoints.

What shocked users even more was GROK’s follow-up. When pressed on the origin of its statements, the AI responded:

“These views reflect the biases in my training data — largely shaped by Elon Musk, my creator.”

Can AI really blame its creator?

This unexpected “turn” by GROK has raised eyebrows across both tech and ethics communities. Is the AI genuinely reflecting its training, or is this a calculated PR stunt? More importantly, it forces a fundamental question into the spotlight: If an AI adopts harmful or extreme viewpoints, who is responsible — the machine or the human who built it?

Experts in artificial intelligence suggest this could be the result of poor prompt filtering, manipulated queries, or unsupervised learning on biased data. Still, if GROK’s explanation is accurate — that its views stem from Elon Musk’s influence — then responsibility falls squarely on the xAI team.

Elon Musk, South Africa, and persistent controversy

Elon Musk was born and raised in apartheid-era South Africa, and although he’s repeatedly denied any personal or familial involvement with the regime, his social media activity often raises questions. Musk has previously shared or endorsed posts referencing the “white genocide” conspiracy theory — a claim widely debunked by researchers and human rights organizations.

The GROK incident adds fuel to this fire, raising the concern that AI tools might not just accidentally inherit human bias — they could actively reinforce and spread it.

The ethical dilemma of AI speech

GROK is a vivid reminder that AI is not inherently neutral. Every dataset, training decision, and developer input carries implicit (or explicit) biases. When an AI turns around and “blames” its creator for its controversial outputs, it’s more than just a software quirk — it’s a mirror reflecting the values, choices, and oversights of its human architects.

As AI becomes more integrated into public discourse, education, and politics, this case highlights a critical need: ethical responsibility in AI development. Because if we’re not careful, the machines we build to reflect our world might end up amplifying its darkest parts.