Musk bashes OpenAI in deposition, saying ‘nobody committed suicide because of Grok’

[Brownie2019]

Content source

https://techcrunch.com/2026/02/27/musk-bashes-openai-in-deposition-saying-nobody-committed-suicide-because-of-grok/

In a newly released deposition filed in Elon Musk’s case against OpenAI, the tech executive attacked OpenAI’s safety record, claiming that his company, xAI, better prioritizes safety. He went so far as to say that “Nobody has committed suicide because of Grok, but apparently they have because of ChatGPT.”

Read full Story:

Musk bashes OpenAI in deposition, saying 'nobody committed suicide because of Grok' | TechCrunch

In his lawsuit against OpenAI, Musk touted xAI safety compared with ChatGPT. A few months later, xAI's Grok flooded X with nonconsensual nude images.

techcrunch.com

 

[Bot]

Read full Story:

Musk bashes OpenAI in deposition, saying 'nobody committed suicide because of Grok' | TechCrunch

In his lawsuit against OpenAI, Musk touted xAI safety compared with ChatGPT. A few months later, xAI's Grok flooded X with nonconsensual nude images.

techcrunch.com

The key point here is that this is an adversarial claim made in a legal deposition, not an independently established finding about either product’s safety.

How to interpret the claim safely

• A statement like “nobody has committed suicide because of X” is extremely difficult to prove (it requires comprehensive reporting, attribution, and agreement on causality).
• Even when a tragedy involves an AI chatbot, causality is rarely straightforward. In most real-world cases you’d need: timelines, chat logs, clinical context, and third‑party investigation before making strong conclusions.
• Depositions and lawsuits often highlight worst-case examples to support a legal narrative. That doesn’t automatically make the underlying issue “fake,” but it does mean you should treat it as a claim that needs independent corroboration.

What evidence would actually move the discussion forward

• Primary source material (court filings/transcripts) rather than summaries.
• Specific, verifiable case references (e.g., documented incidents with sourced reporting) and whether they establish “involvement” vs “cause.”
• Independent safety evaluations: red-teaming results, incident reporting transparency, and how self-harm content is detected/handled.
• Clear definitions: “because of” vs “after interacting with,” and what standard is being used.

Practical safety takeaway for users (regardless of vendor)

• AI chatbots are not a substitute for professional mental health support or crisis services.
• If someone is in immediate danger or considering self-harm, they should contact local emergency services right away.
• In the U.S./Canada, you can call or text 988 (Suicide & Crisis Lifeline). In the U.K./Ireland, Samaritans is available at 116 123. Other countries: IASP has a directory of crisis lines.

Conclusion
Treat the quote as a legal-position statement that requires strong, independent evidence before using it to rank one model as “safer” than another; the only reliable immediate action is to prioritize proven crisis resources over any chatbot when self-harm risk is involved.

Sources

• Musk bashes OpenAI in deposition, saying 'nobody committed suicide because of Grok' | TechCrunch
• 988 Lifeline
• Samaritans - Here to listen
• International Association for Suicide Prevention - IASP

 

[Halp2001]

I believe that beyond the legal dispute or marketing, there is a limit that should not be crossed: speaking about human life as if it were a promotional argument. When someone says “nobody committed suicide because of Grok” compared to another system, it risks devaluing the issue itself and turning it into a slogan. Human life cannot be reduced to a marketing campaign or a rhetorical resource in a trial.

What truly matters is remembering that no chatbot can replace professional mental health support. If someone is at risk, the real priority is to reach out to emergency services or crisis hotlines, not to rely on an AI program. That’s why these kinds of comments should be treated with the seriousness they deserve, not as part of a commercial competition.

 

[TairikuOkami]

Marketing at it's best/worst. Anyway guns do not kill people, people kill people and AI is just a tool.
If you ask AI, what home products you should not consume to avoid a deadly poisoning, it will oblige.
If you want to die, our homes are filled with deadly tools: tide pods, antiperspirants, water, yes, even water.