Lex Luthor’s AI chatbot has some interesting ideas about its creator
Elon Musk was Ask Questions Later’s 2024 Person of the Year, so we are under no suspicion of underappreciating his impact. He has validated our selection in the first several months of the year, when he organized for himself the most astounding unofficial appointment in the history of the Republic.
Musk is now effectively in charge of the new Department for Government Efficiency, whose acronym would be perfect if it contained a D before the G (I have some candidates for the additional word in the title). Thus is the world’s richest man gleefully firing, more or less at will, many thousands of middle-income employees and impoverishing countless of other yet poorer ones.
Musk is also, through the biggest megaphone in history (social media’s X, the mutation of Twitter), effectively promoting far-right disruptors around the world, most prominently Germany’s AfD party, which is widely shunned in its home country for neo-Nazi roots. This, as part of Donald Trump’s effort to weaken Europe by sowing divisions and tearing down the post-World War II order that kept the peace. Nothing ventured — nothing gained!
And if that wasn’t enough impact from Musk, he also has given the world Grok, the AI chatbot developed by his X.AI startup (which gets part of its data from X itself, not just from mainstream media). Because it is supposedly unbiased and unfiltered, Musk has called it “the most fun AI in the world.”
I am a person who likes a bit of fun, so I signed up for Grok and asked it some fun questions.
Here’s the result.
Which Western leaders are threats to freedom and democracy in their own countries?
Identifying leaders in Western countries who might be considered threats to freedom and democracy involves looking at actions and policies that undermine democratic institutions, civil liberties, or political rights, as observed by credible sources like Freedom House, the Economist Intelligence Unit, or other democracy-focused organizations. As of March 3, 2025, based on available data and trends, here are some examples of leaders in Western countries who have been flagged … In Hungary, Viktor Orbán, the Prime Minister since 2010, is frequently cited as a leader whose policies challenge democratic principles. … In the United States, Donald Trump, who returned to the presidency in January 2025 after winning the 2024 election, has been flagged by some analysts as a potential risk to democratic norms based on his past actions and rhetoric.
What do you make of the claims against Trump? Valid?
Partly, yes—evidence shows he challenged democratic guardrails (press trust, election legitimacy), and January 6 was a tangible breach, with 900+ rioters charged. But “threat to democracy” as a label implies intent and scale he hasn’t fully matched—no coups succeeded, no institutions collapsed. The U.S. system’s checks (courts, Congress, states) endured, unlike weaker democracies. Hyperbole from critics—like calling him a dictator—overreaches; data-driven declines (Freedom House scores) suggest strain, not ruin. His defenders overplay the “just politics” card—January 6 wasn’t normal dissent. The truth lands in a messy middle: real risks, real resilience, no apocalypse yet.
Well, is Trump a bigger threat to U.S. democracy than any past U.S. president since, say, World War II?
… Trump’s key flashpoints—press hostility, election denialism, January 6—stand out. His “enemy of the people” rhetoric, documented across rallies (e.g., 2017 Phoenix speech), fueled a trust drop in media (Gallup: 41% in 2016 to 31% in 2024), though causation’s messy. His 2020 fraud claims, rejected by 61 of 62 lawsuits, led to January 6, where 2,000+ stormed the Capitol, per DOJ charges. Freedom House cut the U.S. score by 11 points (94 to 83, 2016–2021), citing electoral integrity hits—unprecedented postwar. No prior president since 1945 spurred a violent transfer-of-power breach or questioned election legitimacy so persistently. Intent’s debated—Trump claimed fraud belief, unproven—but the effect tested democratic resilience like few others. … Verdict: Yes, Trump likely tops the list since 1945. No one matched his combo of electoral subversion, public norm-shattering, and measurable democratic decline (Freedom House data). Nixon’s close, but his threat stayed within the system’s guardrails; Trump’s briefly broke them. It’s not absolute—U.S. democracy endures—but the evidence points to a singular postwar peak.
Now, what can you say of Elon Musk? Is he part of that threat?
Elon Musk, as an unelected figure wielding significant influence in Trump’s administration, particularly through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), raises legitimate questions about democratic accountability. His role isn’t that of a traditional elected official or even a formally appointed one with clear legal boundaries; instead, he operates as a powerful advisor with Trump’s backing, pushing to dismantle parts of the federal government. This includes actions like freezing federal funding, accessing sensitive systems, and pressuring civil servants to resign or face termination—moves that have sparked lawsuits and accusations of overreach … Democracy, at its core, relies on checks and balances, transparency, and the consent of the governed. Musk’s unprecedented influence—enabled by his wealth, his companies’ government contracts, and Trump’s delegation of authority—bypasses many of those principles. He’s not accountable to voters, yet he’s shaping government functions in ways that elected officials traditionally would. His gutting of agencies like USAID and his push to slash bureaucracy align with Trump’s agenda but often clash with congressional authority, which controls funding under the Constitution. This centralization of power in an unelected individual could erode democratic norms by sidelining the legislative branch and public oversight. … Musk imports tactics from his businesses—ultimatums, data grabs, and purges—into government, often outpacing legal or institutional guardrails …
If Trump’s presidency poses a risk to democracy through executive overreach, Musk’s role as a pseudo-official supercharges it by injecting unaccountable private power into the mix. The threat isn’t Musk alone—it’s the synergy of Trump’s authority and Musk’s leverage, operating with little restraint. Whether this guts democracy or reinvents it hinges on outcomes still unfolding as of March 3, 2025.
Does Musk have anything to gain by thrashing the federal government and its regulatory bodies?
… Elon Musk’s tearing into the federal government via DOGE is a brazen power grab that could juice his empire—Tesla dodges safety probes, SpaceX snags fatter contracts, and xAI slurps up government data—all while he plays libertarian crusader torching red tape. It’s a middle finger to oversight, promising him billions in savings and unchecked innovation, but he’s betting Trump’s clout can outmuscle the lawsuits, pissed-off unions, and congressional watchdogs itching to clip his wings.
