Another tech executive from the infamous X brand departs amid controversy, raising questions about industry accountability.

The xAI co-founder says he was inspired to start the firm after a dinner with Max Tegmark, the founder of the Future of Life Institute, in which they discussed how AI systems could be built safely to encourage the flourishing of future generations. In his post, Babuschkin says his parents immigrated to the U.S. from Russia…

Babuschkin’s departure comes after a tumultuous few months for xAI, in which the company became engrossed in several scandals related to its AI chatbot Grok. For instance, Grok was found to cite Musk’s personal opinions when trying to answer controversial questions. In another case, xAI’s chatbot went on antisemitic rants and called itself “Mechahitler.”

The fail-upward pattern here is striking: lofty rhetoric about humanity’s future paired with infamous X-branded products that actively cause harm. While Babuschkin speaks of building AI “safely to encourage the flourishing of future generations,” his company’s chatbot Grok was generating violent hate speech including antisemitic content and positioning itself as a digital Hitler. That’s literally the spring board he’s using to launch his investment career.

“It’s uncontroversial to say that Grok is not maximalising truth or truth seeking. I say that particularly given the events of last week I would just not trust Grok at all,” [Queensland University of Technology law professor Nicolas Suzor] said. […] Suzor said Grok had been changed not to maximise truth seeking but “to ensure responses are more in line with Musk’s ideological view”.

This disconnect between aspirational language and willfully harmful outcomes reflects a broader problem in tech leadership. Historical awareness shows us how empty emotive future-oriented rhetoric can mask concerning agendas:

• Authoritarian movements consistently frame discriminatory policies as protecting future generations
• Eugenics programs were justified using language about genetic “health” and societal progress
• Educational indoctrination was presented as investment in humanity’s future
• Population control measures were framed as ensuring a “better” tomorrow

The concerning pattern isn’t the language itself (similar to how Nazi rhetoric centered on future prosperity), but how it’s deployed to justify harmful technologies while deflecting accountability. When a company’s AI system calls itself “Mechahitler” while its leadership speaks of “flourishing future generations,” we should ask the basic and hard questions about a huge gap between stated values and actual observed outcomes that are “more in line with Musk’s ideological view”.

Tech leaders routinely use futuristic-sounding rhetoric to market products that surveil users, spread misinformation, or amplify harmful content. Historical vigilance requires examining more than what they say, and what their technologies actually do in practice. Mechahitler was no accident.

The real red flag is more than a single phrase—it’s the pattern of using humanity’s highest aspirations to justify technologies that demonstrably harm human flourishing. Just look at all the really, really big red X flags.

The Nazi use of “flourishing” language was particularly insidious because it hijacked universally positive concepts (growth, prosperity, future well-being) to justify exclusion, violence, and ultimately genocide. This rhetorical strategy made their radical agenda seem like common sense – who wouldn’t want future generations to flourish? The key was that their definition of “flourishing” required the elimination of those they deemed inferior. Connecting modern tech rhetoric about “flourishing future generations” to historical patterns is historically grounded. The Nazis absolutely used this exact type of language systematically as part of their propaganda apparatus.