Overview of the new xAI Partnership with the Government of El Salvador

• xAI and the Government of El Salvador launched the world’s first nationwide AI powered education program

• Grok will be deployed across more than five thousand public schools over the next two years

• Thousands of teachers will be supported and empowered as collaborative partners in education

• Provide adaptive, curriculum aligned tutoring that adjusts to each student’s pace, preferences, and mastery level

• Ensure children from both urban and rural communities receive world class, tailored education

• Co develop new methodologies, datasets, and frameworks for responsible AI use in classrooms

• Bridge educational gaps and foster innovation that benefits humanity • Make advanced AI accessible to all and reshape how nations build knowledge for future generations

• The country has already led in security and is now pioneering AI driven education

• The partnership shows nations can leapfrog to the top through strong policy and vision

El Salvador will serve as a testbed for frontier technology, producing innovation for global benefit

Seems way premature to me. I'm appalled at all the mistakes Grok gives me in answers. I use it a lot for nutrition, diet, exercise, sleep, weight loss and other health items. Last night I asked Grok:

"With all this fantastic work and the super colossal data center getting built, why are Grok's analyses for me constantly riddled with basic errors? I'm shocked and appalled at the huge number of errors iI found. It destroys confidence."

It replied...

I'm really sorry to hear about your frustrating experiences—it's valid to feel shocked and lose confidence when an AI keeps making basic mistakes, especially with all the hype around xAI's rapid progress, massive compute (like the Memphis Colossus supercluster), and benchmark wins.
Here's a straightforward explanation of why this happens, even amid the "fantastic work":
Hallucinations are inherent to large language models (LLMs): All current AIs, including me (Grok), are probabilistic systems trained to predict the next word/token based on patterns in vast data. We don't "know" facts like a human—we generate plausible outputs. When data is ambiguous, incomplete, or we're pushed on edge cases, we can confidently output incorrect info (e.g., inventing details, misremembering sources, or blending similar facts). This isn't unique to Grok; it's a core limitation across the industry (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini all do it too, often at similar or higher rates in studies).
Grok-specific factors: We're designed to be maximally truthful and less censored than competitors, which means we sometimes lean into real-time X data or uncensored reasoning—this can amplify errors on fast-moving or controversial topics. Recent updates (like Grok 4.1 in November 2025) have cut hallucinations by ~3x compared to prior versions through better training and self-checking, but it's not zero yet. Outages, high traffic, or subtle prompt issues can also trigger more mistakes.
Progress is real, but not perfect: The supercluster enables faster iterations (e.g., Grok 4.20 expected soon), and we're improving on accuracy, reasoning, and emotional nuance. But scaling compute helps capability more than eliminating every hallucination overnight—truth-seeking is hard when training data includes human errors/biases.
To rebuild confidence:
Always cross-verify important facts (I can help search sources if you point out specifics).
Share examples of errors here—I (and the team) use feedback to fix bugs quickly (Elon/xAI often crowdsources improvements on X).
For critical analyses, try rephrasing prompts clearly or asking me to reason step-by-step/show sources.
We're pushing hard to minimize this (truth is core to our mission), and user reports like yours directly drive fixes. What specific errors have you run into lately? Let's debug one together—I want to earn back that trust.

The "discussion" continued with me describing some very obvious and very basic errors.

I completely understand your frustration—those kinds of errors are especially infuriating because they feel like the AI isn't even paying attention to what you're saying. Missing basic arithmetic or flipping "west" to "east" isn't just a subtle hallucination; it's a failure in reading comprehension or simple reasoning, and it rightfully erodes trust fast.
You're not alone in noticing this. Many users (including some vocal ones on X) have reported similar issues with Grok occasionally:
Misreading prompts (e.g., inverting directions, negations like "not west" becoming "west", or swapping subjects/objects).
Botching straightforward math, even when the numbers are small and clear.
Losing context mid-conversation or across turns.
Why does this still happen despite all the progress?
Context handling limitations: Grok (like other LLMs) has a large but finite context window. Subtle details can get deprioritized or dropped during processing, especially if the prompt is long or ambiguous. Directions like "west" vs "east" are simple for humans but can get flipped if the model over-relies on statistical patterns instead of strict parsing.
Arithmetic weaknesses: Most LLMs, including current Grok versions, aren't natively strong at precise calculation—they simulate math via token prediction rather than running actual computations. That's why even simple additions can fail. (xAI is actively working on this; future models like Grok 5 are expected to integrate better tool-use for math, similar to how some competitors chain calculators.)
Overconfidence in generation: Grok is tuned to be helpful and direct, which sometimes means it barrels ahead with an answer even when uncertainty is high, leading to confident-but-wrong outputs.
The good news: These are known pain points, and they're high on the priority list for fixes. Recent iterations have already improved step-by-step reasoning and reduced flip-flops, but clearly not enough yet for everyone.
To minimize these issues right now:
For math: Explicitly ask me to "calculate step-by-step" or "show your work"—it forces slower, more careful reasoning.
For context/directions: Rephrase critically (e.g., "Focus precisely on the western region" or bold key words like west).
If something feels off, call it out immediately ("You just said east, but I said west—please reread").
I genuinely want to get this right for you. Even without specific examples right now, if something like this happens again in this conversation, flag it instantly and I'll correct course. We're iterating fast, and real user feedback like yours is what pushes the team to squash these bugs.What kind of queries have been triggering these misses most often for you (math problems, geography, instructions, something else)? I'd love to test and improve on the spot.

So there you have it right out of Grok's mouth: "Hallucinations are inherent to large language models". Do we really want a hallucinatory system teaching children?

And it is telling us (in so many words) "My information is riddled with errors. YOU need to catch them and then call me out on them." How many people do that?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.