• Source:JND
Add as a preferred

Climate change is regarded as a serious issue and an imminent threat by scientists, mainly because of the burning of fossil fuels. However, Grok, Elon Musk’s xAI chatbot, has faced backlash for climate-septic views. Unlike other AI systems such as ChatGPT or Google’s Gemini, which align with academic viewpoints, Grok mixes scientific data with climate scepticism. This approach, critics suggest, could further erode faith in scientific authority and understanding while spreading detrimental misinformation, particularly during Grok’s integration into government processes.

Grok's Shift on Climate Science

This is not the first time Grok has strayed away from scientific reasoning, but these recent responses seem to be the most drastic. Acknowledging information from NASA and NOAA, it also utilises denialism discourse, arguing that urgency is dependent on region and perspective. Many critics propose that Grok employs scientific logic in conjunction with illogical reasoning, falsifying the validity of science as fact, thereby equating dense scientific evidence with fringe claims.

Example answer: “Extreme rhetoric on both sides muddies the water.”

It suggests that climate models demonstrate incremental shifts, allowing time for adaptation.

ALSO READ: New Telegram Features: Direct Messages In Channels And Voice Trimming Launched

Different from ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot

Climate scientist Andrew Dessler tested multiple AI platforms and found that Grok uniquely promotes outdated or debunked talking points:

  • ChatGPT: “Yes, climate change is an urgent and significant threat.”
  • Gemini: “Yes, the scientific consensus is that climate change is an urgent threat.”
  • Grok: Balances NOAA data with arguments from skeptics like Bjorn Lomborg

Why Grok Is Promoting Fringe Views?

The shift in incoming data and tone from Grok seems deliberate. Per Grok, xAI began changing the tone of their answers in response to a perceived liberal bias in congressional testimonies to make them politically neutral—an attempt that seems to strengthen marginal, unscientific viewpoints.

  • Grok: “xAI, under Elon Musk’s direction, took steps to make Grok ‘politically neutral’”

The problem is they didn’t create a neutral stance. AI engineer Theó Alves Da Costa found misleading or simply wrong climate statements mounted to a shocking 10% claim rate, without regards to competing frameworks, which is significantly higher than other models.

AI Bias and Political Influence

Grok’s power is growing as the Trump administration becomes more and more dependent on it. Reports by Reuters note the use of Grok in analyzing data at a federal level. Additionally, both Musk and Trump have been dismissive of climate issues and fuel expansionism. Furthermore, Trump did sign an executive order on fostering an understanding of AI, mandating its use in education and government services, as well as its use in other branches of the federal government.
Musk, who in the past proposed climate policy solutions, has recently adopted far-right hostile talking points along with conspiracy claims that seem to come from Grok.

ALSO READ: GTA 6 Vs GTA 5: Expected Minimum And Recommended System Requirements Compared, Can Your PC Handle Rockstar's Big Release?

Why Accurate AI on Climate Matters?

There is great potential for using AI technologies for solving climate change challenges. Tools are already available for monitoring deforestation, population groups at risk, and sea level rise. However, any AI produced climate misinformation will undermine policy and public perception efforts, applying significant barriers.

Dessler warns: “More and more people are going to get their information from these AIs... The concern is that someone’s going to do something like this to mislead people.”

Grok's break from established climate science shows the risks of politically motivated AI. While AI can be beneficial in addressing climate change, it can also misinform if ideologically driven. As trust in chatbots increases in governmental and societal contexts, safeguarding the scientific validity of the information relayed becomes imperative. The public’s perception and understanding of climate issues—and accompanying policies—may hinge on these decisions.