Futurism88%

Grok’s Foul-Mouthed AI “Translation” Feature Puts Unspeakably Ghoulish Words Into Users’ Mouths 73%

By Victor Tangermann83%

7/14/2026, 5:54:24 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Biased Writer Voice, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 61.8% saturation with 293 hits. Analysis detected 1,794 faulty-reasoning hits from 474 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.9% and a BS Rank of 73% (5,530 of 20,498 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.00% of the article peer group.

Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok has long garnered a reputation for experiencing horrifically racist meltdowns , enabling child abuse , and doxxing users’ home addresses . 
It should come as no surprise, then, that its supposed “translation” is a piece of work, too. 
In April, the almost-trillionaire’s social media platform X instated automatic AI translations for all of its users  and the results certainly speak for themselves. 
As writer and author Parker Molloy pointed out in a recent post on Bluesky , the Grok feature is “taking some interesting liberties” with people’s otherwise sincere posts. 
Screenshots show how Grok completely botched translations by coming up with shocking and decidedly NSFW AI hallucinations. 
One South Korean user, for instance, posted an otherwise tame video of two video game characters, only for the auto-translate feature to allege that it was a “c**shot video with my stepmom.” 
“I am not sure it is the right translation,” a taken-aback user replied. 
“It isn’t correct at all!” 
the original poster lamented . 
Another post by Portuguese account POPTime shows a video of a man making an elaborate cup of coffee during a flight. 
But a purported translation “from Portuguese by Grok” claimed that the video shows a man who is pleasuring himself in public. 
“Grok auto translate is inaccurate, text actually translates to ‘Man grinds and brews his own coffee during a commercial flight,’ not ‘Man masturbates and jerks off to his own coffee during commercial flight,'” an appended community note reads. 
Another Turkish user, who posted an innocent picture of their young kitten, was horrified after Grok’s translation suggested that they were looking to “f*** our baby.” 
“Uhhh the automatic translation makes it alarming,” another user replied . 
To the X community, which has already seen its fair share of Grok’s foul-mouthed shenanigans, the AI’s profanity-laden translations were just another bemusing distraction. 
But to anybody looking to meaningfully post on social media, the bizarre liberties the chatbot is taking perfectly highlight the sorry state of the microblogging platform. 
Ever since Musk took over in 2022, users have noted a major uptick in the proliferation of hate speech and disinformation. 
Researchers have found that X’s AI models are driving online racist abuse . 
Grok’s ability to come up with AI images, in particular, has been mired in controversy, from being used to generate nonconsensual nudes of women to a single account that was recently found to have posted thousands of explicit images of an 11-year-old girl. 
Musk’s prodigal chatbot, in other words, has been guilty of crimes far worse than expletive-laden translations. 
More on Grok: Grok Linked to Sickening Crime in Lawsuit That Puts SpaceX in Crosshairs 
The post Grok’s Foul-Mouthed AI “Translation” Feature Puts Unspeakably Ghoulish Words Into Users’ Mouths appeared first on Futurism . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.3%Victor Tangermann: 5.5%Futurism: 5.7%Confirmation Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.8%Futurism: 1.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.7%Victor Tangermann: 5.3%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic13.7%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.3%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.5%Futurism: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Victor Tangermann: 11.2%Futurism: 11.4%Framing Effect7.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.9%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.7%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 12.4%Victor Tangermann: 5.7%Futurism: 4.2%Pessimism Bias12.4%This article: 61.8%Victor Tangermann: 22.4%Futurism: 22.3%Negativity Bias61.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.7%Futurism: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Victor Tangermann: 2.2%Futurism: 2.2%Recency Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.8%Futurism: 1.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 21.9%Victor Tangermann: 8.1%Futurism: 7.0%Appeal to Authority21.9%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.6%Futurism: 2.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 3.1%Futurism: 2.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 5.3%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Circular Reasoning5.3%This article: 35.9%Victor Tangermann: 9.4%Futurism: 10.4%Hasty Generalization35.9%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.0%Futurism: 0.9%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.1%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.2%Bandwagon5.1%This article: 14.6%Victor Tangermann: 8.8%Futurism: 9.3%Appeal to Emotion14.6%This article: 3.6%Victor Tangermann: 1.8%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question3.6%This article: 7.2%Victor Tangermann: 3.5%Futurism: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.2%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.8%Futurism: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 53.4%Victor Tangermann: 3.9%Futurism: 4.5%Anecdotal53.4%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.1%Victor Tangermann: 3.0%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.1%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 31.4%Victor Tangermann: 4.0%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote31.4%This article: 20.7%Victor Tangermann: 2.4%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection20.7%This article: 52.1%Victor Tangermann: 21.5%Futurism: 20.6%Biased Writer Voice52.1%This article: 5.5%Victor Tangermann: 1.3%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination5.5%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.4%Futurism: 2.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Victor Tangermann: 1.2%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.2%

474 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker5.9%attributed speech446writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageParker Molloy • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Parker Molloy

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words100% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+84.3 ptsWriter: 15.7%Parker Molloy: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+72.9 ptsWriter: 27.1%Parker Molloy: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-55.4 ptsWriter: 55.4%Parker Molloy: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.8 ptsWriter: 5.8%Parker Molloy: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Parker Molloy: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.