What does GROK say about Musk & DOGE?

Prepare for surprises...

Musk owns GROK.

According to Wikipedia, GROK is

“Grok is a generative artificial intelligence chatbot developed by xAI. Based on the large language model (LLM) of the same name, it was launched in 2023 as an initiative by Elon Musk.^[3] The chatbot is advertised as having a "sense of humor" and direct access to sister platform X, formerly known as Twitter.”

GROK competes with other AI-enhanced chatbots, such as ChatGPT and Claude.

Enough strange terms, eh? (Sorry, it goes with the territory but the hyperlinks in that first quote should help you wade a little bit deeper into the terms.)

I was curious how GROK3 (the current release of GROK) would characterize content articulated by Elon Musk and referenced to me by peers in the Current Events group that I participate in.

What did they suggest? That the Events Group’s members should look at “an interesting interview (on FOXNews) with Bret Baier and Elon Musk and the DOGE team.”

So what did I do?

I fired up the specific show (https://www.foxnews.com/video/6370654580112) and settled back to get up-to-date on what Musk and DOGE were saying.

The first interesting assertion I heard on the recording was Musk’s claim (echoed in real time harmony by the DOGE choir behind him) was that the National Park Service was paying a billion dollars for a simple park-user survey.

So I fired up an instance of GROK3 and said (typed on the screen)

Musk claimed that the National Park Service was paying a billion dollars for a park-user survey. Can you find any evidence to support that?

Here’s what GROK wrote:

Elon Musk claimed that the National Park Service (NPS) spent nearly a billion dollars on a simple park-user survey, a statement he made during a Fox News interview on March 27, 2025. He suggested this was an example of government waste uncovered by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), implying it was a 10-question survey that could have been conducted for $10,000 via SurveyMonkey. However, there is no clear evidence to substantiate this specific claim as stated.

Investigations by CBS News and other outlets, conducted shortly after Musk’s statement, found no record of the Department of the Interior (which oversees the NPS) spending or planning to spend $1 billion on any single survey, let alone one specifically about park users. The NPS’s entire budget for fiscal year 2025 is approximately $3.57 billion, making a $1 billion survey expenditure—over 25% of its total funding—highly implausible without significant documentation, which is absent.

A related claim from Steve Davis, a DOGE associate, during the same interview, mentioned an $830 million contract by the Department of the Interior that included an online survey, which DOGE allegedly stopped. However, no such $830 million contract tied solely to a park-user survey appears in DOGE’s “wall of receipts” (a public list of terminated contracts) or other federal spending databases like USASpending.gov. The five canceled contracts listed by DOGE exceeding $800 million in total value are not from the Interior Department, further casting doubt on this figure’s relevance to the NPS.

The closest verifiable context might involve the Federal Consulting Group (FCG), which brokered a contract for customer satisfaction surveys across federal agencies, including potentially the NPS. Reports suggest this was a $75 million contract for multiple surveys over several years, not a single billion-dollar effort. Even smaller-scale NPS visitor surveys, like the socioeconomic monitoring project started in 2021, cost far less—typically in the thousands to low millions annually—according to National Park Service reports.

Musk’s claim appears to be an exaggeration or conflation of a different contract, possibly the $830 million figure Davis referenced, but no evidence ties this directly to a $1 billion NPS park-user survey. Without specific documentation from Musk or DOGE—such as contract IDs or receipts matching the claim—independent analysis aligns with the conclusion that this assertion lacks substantiation. Posts on X and web reports, including CBS News’ fact-check on March 28, 2025, consistently note the absence of supporting data, suggesting the billion-dollar figure is either a misstatement or an unverified assertion.

Remember: This is the output from Elon Musk’s generative-AI BOT! And I didn’t preload GROK with anything other that the simple prompt: “Musk claimed that the National Park Service was paying a billion dollars for a park-user survey. Can you find any evidence to support that?”

Extended Analysis

We can go for more. You should ask GROK (as I did at that point)

Let's go to "https://www.foxnews.com/video/6370654580112." I'd like you to analyze all the key positions declared by Musk or his DOGE team: (1) extract the key positions in summary form (2) identify evidence for and against each position and (3) write a summary judgment on the position. Once you’re done with that, summarize your findings on the Musk+DOGE team content of the video.

I want to keep this post short so I’ll leave that exercise to you.

But do it for yourself! Now!

A few observations, not all of which are obvious.

1. GROK wasn’t very good it finding key positions to analyze on the recording. It did a better job when I fed it specifics to analyze.

2. GROK seems to be bending over backwards ensuring it exposes both positive and negative considerations. That’s good! But it needs to generate stronger conclusions.

3. As you work your way through the Extended Analysis process, look to see

   1. What GROK missed completely

   2. Which of GROK’s analyses appear to you to be unfair or perhaps could be argued differently

   3. How all of this relates to the value you could get from GROK3

4. Feel free to use other ‘smart bots’ like ChatGPT or Claude. I did! But I think the theater of using Musk’s technology, GROK3, to analyze the Muskian musings was a pretty clever way to suppress objections of hidden author biases here. I’ve tried to be non-partisan here.

Question for all: what did you learn from this note and from the Extended Analysis process? What did you pick up that adds value to this note? Share that in the comments.

To expand the content’s educational and entertainment value, I also gave GROK a crack at one of Musk’s critics. Here’s what I asked:

I want you to analyze a web page and (1) summarize what it says (2) evaluate the credibility of all the assertions in the document. https://intpolicydigest.org/the-emperor-without-clothes-unmasking-elon-musk-with-dan-o-dowd/

GROK’s take

(1) Summary of the Web Page

The article, titled "The Emperor Without Clothes: Unmasking Elon Musk with Dan O’Dowd," published on March 4, 2025, by International Policy Digest, features an interview between Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Dan O’Dowd, a software engineer and critic of Elon Musk. The piece aims to challenge the public persona of Musk as a visionary innovator, portraying him instead as a figure driven by self-interest, exaggeration, and manipulative tactics.

• Dan O’Dowd’s Background: O’Dowd is presented as a leading expert in secure software systems, having developed operating systems for critical projects like Boeing’s 787, Lockheed Martin’s F-35, and NASA’s Orion spacecraft. His credentials establish him as a technical authority contrasting with Musk.

• Critique of Musk’s Persona: O’Dowd argues that Musk’s image as a relentless workaholic (e.g., sleeping in factories) is fabricated. He claims Musk spends little time at his companies, citing Tesla’s production crisis where Musk allegedly wasn’t present despite claims otherwise. Instead, competent leaders like Gwynne Shotwell at SpaceX run operations.

• Musk’s Tactics in Arguments: O’Dowd asserts Musk uses a “bluff” strategy when challenged by experts, inventing unverifiable claims about secret projects (e.g., collaborations with universities) to assert dominance and avoid accountability.

• Emotional and Personal Traits: The article suggests Musk lacks empathy, supported by family anecdotes (e.g., his mother’s comments on his social graces, his strained relationship with his father). O’Dowd links this to Musk’s history of substance use and mood swings, framing his behavior as erratic.

• Overall Narrative: Musk is depicted as a “playboy billionaire” whose grandiose visions (e.g., Mars colonization) are marketing ploys rather than genuine innovation. The title evokes the “Emperor’s New Clothes” fable, implying Musk’s achievements are overhyped and his flaws obscured by public adulation.

(2) Evaluation of Credibility of Assertions

Below, I evaluate the credibility of the key assertions based on available evidence, logical consistency, and potential bias, without inventing information or accepting claims at face value.

Assertion 1: Musk Fabricates His Workaholic Image

• Claim: Musk didn’t sleep on the factory floor during Tesla’s production crisis; others say he wasn’t there.

• Evaluation: This challenges Musk’s well-documented narrative from 2018, when he told outlets like The New York Times he worked 120-hour weeks and slept at the Tesla factory during Model 3 production ramps. O’Dowd’s counterclaim relies on unnamed “people who were actually there.” Without specific sources (e.g., named witnesses or records), this lacks substantiation. Tesla insiders, like former executives in Walter Isaacson’s 2023 biography Elon Musk, confirm Musk’s intense involvement during crises, though his exact presence varies. The assertion is plausible but unproven due to lack of evidence; it could reflect O’Dowd’s bias as a Musk critic.

• Credibility: Low to moderate—requires corroboration from credible, named sources.

Assertion 2: Musk Barely Runs His Companies

• Claim: Musk is absent from day-to-day operations, with Gwynne Shotwell running SpaceX and Tesla’s leadership unclear.

• Evaluation: Shotwell’s pivotal role as SpaceX president and COO is widely acknowledged; she manages operations while Musk focuses on vision and engineering (per Forbes and Bloomberg profiles). At Tesla, Musk’s CEO role involves strategic oversight, though he delegates to executives like Zach Kirkhorn (ex-CFO). O’Dowd’s claim exaggerates Musk’s detachment—public records (e.g., SEC filings, earnings calls) show Musk’s active engagement, even if not micromanaging daily tasks. The assertion oversimplifies complex corporate structures.

• Credibility: Moderate—partially true for SpaceX but overstated for Tesla, lacking nuance.

Assertion 3: Musk Bluffs in Arguments

• Claim: Musk invents projects (e.g., Buffalo University, MIT, Sorbonne collaborations) to win debates.

• Evaluation: No specific examples are provided beyond O’Dowd’s hypothetical dialogue. Musk’s tendency to hype future projects (e.g., Neuralink, Hyperloop) is documented, but these are often tied to real initiatives, not pure fabrications. The Buffalo University reference lacks context—no such collaboration is widely reported. Musk’s debate style leans on bold claims, as seen in X posts, but O’Dowd’s assertion feels anecdotal without recorded instances. It aligns with Musk’s known rhetorical flair but needs evidence.

• Credibility: Low—speculative without concrete examples or recordings.

Assertion 4: Musk Lacks Empathy and Has Personal Issues

• Claim: Musk has “no real empathy,” supported by family comments, substance use, and mood swings.

• Evaluation: Musk’s mother, Maye, has said in interviews (e.g., Times UK, 2017) his focus on work overshadows social skills, which could imply limited empathy but isn’t definitive. His father, Errol, has given conflicting interviews (Business Insider, 2018), calling Musk brilliant yet flawed, though their rift complicates reliability. Musk admitted to ketamine use in a 2024 Don Lemon interview, and his X posts show mood variability. These support O’Dowd’s portrait but are cherry-picked; empathy is subjective and hard to disprove. The claim fits a critical narrative but isn’t conclusive.

• Credibility: Moderate—based on partial evidence, heavily interpretive.

Assertion 5: Musk’s Visions Are Marketing Ploys

• Claim: Musk’s goals (e.g., Mars colonization) are fabricated for inspiration, not innovation.

• Evaluation: Musk’s Mars vision drives SpaceX, which has achieved reusable rockets and NASA contracts (e.g., Artemis program). Critics like O’Dowd may see it as overhyped, but tangible progress (e.g., Starship tests) contradicts pure fabrication. Tesla’s EV dominance also stems from Musk’s sustainability pitch, though unfulfilled promises (e.g., $25,000 car) fuel skepticism. The assertion dismisses real outcomes, reflecting O’Dowd’s agenda over balanced analysis.

• Credibility: Low to moderate—undermines Musk’s achievements, though hype is a fair critique.

Source and Author Credibility

• Dan O’Dowd: A credible software expert (Green Hills Software CEO, Caltech grad), but his Dawn Project targets Musk’s Tesla FSD, suggesting bias. His technical authority doesn’t extend to Musk’s personal life or business operations.

• International Policy Digest: A niche outlet focused on policy and critique, not primary reporting. It lacks the rigor of mainstream fact-checked journalism.

• Bias: The article’s tone and O’Dowd’s history (e.g., 2022 Senate run against Tesla) indicate an anti-Musk slant, reducing objectivity.

Conclusion

The article paints a provocative picture of Musk but leans heavily on O’Dowd’s opinions, many of which lack hard evidence or rely on unverified anecdotes. Assertions about Musk’s work habits and tactics are plausible given his polarizing reputation but require substantiation beyond O’Dowd’s word. Claims about his personality align with some public data yet feel exaggerated. The piece is more a critique than a factual exposé, credible in parts but undermined by bias and thin sourcing. Readers should approach it skeptically, cross-referencing with primary accounts (e.g., Musk’s interviews, company records).

Let’s wrap this up:

GROK3’s cautionary conclusion of its analysis of O’Dowd’s opinions fits pretty well for most of GROK’s relatively shallow work analysis. (And the other smart-bots I tried weren’t substantially better.)

“Approach it skeptically, cross-referencing with primary accounts.”