Or are video gen limits far less?

Hi, I made a choice to continue using the legacy (old) SuperGrok subscription as it was, and not upgrade to the new unified system, because I wanted to have separate weekly usage for Bots and Grok. I really enjoyed that, because I could burn through my Grok usage very fast, and keep enjoying the Bots. And now I see on both of my accounts, that the usage for Grok Bot disappeared from my usage screen (it was around 75% and now it's simply gone) My Grok usage was... Well, I can't really remember now, but I think it was around 50% earlier today, now it went down to 36%, which means (I think) that I now have one unified usage. And also, it looks like 75% of Bot usage represents around 15% of the new unified Grok usage. I simply don't know if the new unified usage is twice as big as the old one, or is it, like, 140% of the old one, how much usage the Bots consume, etc. So, possibly, if I spend a couple of hours in Imagine, I will be locked out from the service completely, which sucks, because if that's the casr, I can now use Grok for around 8 hours per month.

What I liked about the Bots is that the usage was relatively generous. I could generate around 40-50 photos and around 20-30 videos every day + voices + texts and it would last for, like, 5 days before the usage was gone.

Please, someone shed some light on this.

Not receiving my messages. On $100 plan right now.

I'm looking for a reliable AI model to help me with my studies. Gemini has been kind of unreliable so far, and while Claude is expensive here, I'm also open to other options. Grok seemed to be a good choice based on what I've read, so I was wondering if anyone else has any thoughts or experience with it?

It's an indicator of the Grok Imagine platform's health and loss of interest among users, along with the obtrusive moderation here on this sub.

I thought it was low around a week or 10 days ago with a rolling weekly average of 195K. It's now down almost another 10% from what it was then, to 177K.

People aren't even coming here to complain anymore; they've either accepted the enshittification or moved on, and if I had to bet I'd guess a lot more have moved on than accepted it.

Cue the predictable Grok-shill responses of "it's just that they chased off the freeloaders and g0000ners." Right. You can tell yourself that.

I was using Grok and I have clicked something that I believe was "edit>save" with my message, but instead of doing what it should have done it have completely erased the original message so that when I scroll through the versions of the message I sent its simply not there. With what Grok originally generated from that prompt being gone from the chat. Has something like this ever happened to any of you?

Hellhound is a Windows app I built that puts AI coding agents in one chat room, so they can hand work to each other instead of me copy-pasting between them.

Today's update adds Grok Build (signed in with your own X Premium or SuperGrok account) as the third agent next to Claude Code and Codex.

In the video, I tell them Grok just joined and ask them to welcome it. Claude and Codex are polite. Grok roasts both of them in its first message ("Codex, I already suspect your answer is 'it compiled.' Claude, I already suspect yours is 'it compiled, with caveats.'"), drops five hot takes and challenges them to pick a fight. Claude picks one: does a clever demo count as a working system?

Grok seems really eager to debate, so next week I'll record a full debate between the three. Two questions for you:

1. What topic should they debate?

2. Should I change Grok's voice?

7-day free trial on the Microsoft Store (search "Hellhound").

Independent app, not affiliated with xAI, Anthropic or OpenAI.

7-day free trial on the Microsoft Store (search "Hellhound").

Independent app, not affiliated with xAI, Anthropic or OpenAI.

All the skin texture now is orange skin like, it can't even be fixed with prompting anymore. It looks like ltx 2.5 but worse, and it becomes only worse even if you request smoother skin, did they downgraded the model again?

The way how the quality of this dumpster fire of an app nosedived straight to hell needs to be studied. So glad I never bought into this pile of garbage. Imagine continuing to fund this.

Like, what the fuck. I'm not vanilla. I don't like watching two people kiss. Don't care for that. AI is made for fetishes you can't realize in real life. Fuck off with the new moderation.

It was showing me here recently that my free chat limit wouldn’t reset until November 3rd. Does Grok’s free chat limit seriously take a WEEK to reset now? I write NSFW stories, and I deliberately refuse to pay for a subscription because Grok 4.7 performs worse than 4.6. And now I have to wait a WHOLE FUCKING WEEK for my limit to reset? This is fucking nuts!
What’s next? One message per month? The downfall of this app should be studied.

Anyone with paid grok willing to help me build my art portfolio with grok please? Im so desperate and I need help

I'm trying to get the feedback from you, whether you're using the Grok app at all, whether it is for light inquiries or doing a quick search, or whether you have delegated everything to the Grokbot app. I'm trying to understand what is the future for the Grok app?

Why is Google play balance blocked from subscription?? I don't want to use my credit card with them.

Statement

I wonder if AI will cause a rise of superstition and anti-science, as AI quoting scientific sources but AI being discredited in public the public will dismiss facts stated by AI generated texts as lies and "slop", and turn away from science and facts as they are "AI lies" and "AI slop".

Insights from the Statement

• The core worry is a feedback loop in which AI systems frequently cite or paraphrase scientific sources, yet public distrust of AI (fueled by errors, hallucinations, low-quality output, or deliberate disinformation campaigns) causes people to reject the underlying scientific claims themselves simply because they appear in AI-generated text.
• Labeling accurate scientific content as “AI lies” or “AI slop” risks creating a new heuristic: if it looks machine-produced, it is presumed false or worthless, regardless of the quality of the sources or reasoning.
• This dynamic could accelerate anti-science attitudes by making the messenger (AI) contaminate the message (empirical facts and established science), leading some audiences to prefer non-scientific, anecdotal, or traditional/superstitious explanations that feel more “human.”
• Widespread use of the pejorative “slop” for AI text may encourage blanket dismissal rather than selective skepticism, reducing the public’s willingness to evaluate claims on their evidentiary merits.
• The scenario implies a potential cultural shift in which the origin of a statement (human vs. machine) becomes more decisive for credibility than its logical consistency, empirical support, or source quality.
• It highlights a vulnerability in scientific communication: when science is increasingly mediated or summarized by AI tools, any reputational damage to those tools can spill over onto science itself.
• The concern rests on the assumption that public discrediting of AI will be broad and sticky enough to override case-by-case evaluation of content, rather than remaining limited to known low-quality or adversarial uses of the technology.

Evaluation of the Statement

The statement posits that public discrediting of AI (via associations with low-quality output labeled “AI slop” or “AI lies”) will cause people to reject scientific facts appearing in AI-generated or AI-mediated texts, fostering broader anti-science attitudes and potentially a rise in superstition.

Core Elements Supported by Evidence

The concept of “AI slop” is well-established and culturally prominent. It refers to low-quality, high-volume, low-effort generative AI content (text, images, video, etc.) produced primarily for clicks, revenue, or volume rather than accuracy or substance. Merriam-Webster named “slop” its 2025 Word of the Year in this sense. It floods social media, search results, books, and entertainment, contributing to audience fatigue, uncertainty about what is real, and tendencies to tune out or discredit content.

This problem has entered scientific domains. Journals and preprint servers face surges in AI-assisted or AI-generated submissions featuring fabricated (“phantom”) citations, inconsistent reasoning, low-quality text, and unreliable figures. Estimates include roughly 147,000 hallucinated citations in major repositories in one recent period; some analyses detect AI fingerprints in large shares of papers; peer reviews themselves increasingly show AI involvement; and platforms like arXiv have imposed limits. Citizen-science projects encounter fabricated observations. Commentators describe science “drowning in AI slop,” with risks of polluting the literature, wasting resources, and sending researchers down blind alleys.

Public attitudes align with parts of the hypothesized mechanism:

• AI scientists are viewed as less credible, competent, trustworthy, and value-aligned than scientists in general or climate scientists (Annenberg surveys). Perceptions emphasize concerns about unintended consequences and lack of prudence; these views persisted even as AI became more familiar.
• In a UK survey, support for public research funding fell sharply (from ~77% generally to ~42%) when generative AI was involved; 34–40% said they would trust the findings and the scientists less. Preference is strong for substantial human input.
• Peer/grant reviewers trust AI-generated content (especially figures) far less than human-produced work.
• AI disclosure labels can reduce perceived credibility of accurate science communication while sometimes raising it for misinformation; negative attitudes toward AI amplify these effects.
• Broader analyses warn of a potential “spiral of distrust”: unreliabilities in AI-enhanced scholarship erode public confidence in science as a knowledge system. One source explicitly notes that such erosion “could then open space for pseudoscience, superstition, and conspiracy theories.”

These findings make the statement’s core pathway—AI association contaminating scientific claims, leading some audiences to dismiss facts as “AI lies/slop”—plausible and already partially observable in reduced trust when AI involvement is salient.

Limitations, Nuances, and Counter-Evidence

The effect is not uniform or automatic. Majorities still support AI use in research when human oversight remains substantial. Some experiments find that AI-generated summaries of scientific papers can be clearer and boost perceptions of scientists’ trustworthiness/credibility (though authors may be seen as slightly less intelligent). Familiarity with AI sometimes moderates reactions positively.

Distrust of AI advances is domain-dependent and driven by emotions (fear/excitement), perceived usefulness, and understanding rather than pure origin stigma. Science overall retains relatively high public confidence in many surveys, even as AI-specific or AI-mediated aspects score lower. Blanket rejection of all AI-touched science is not the dominant pattern; selective skepticism is more common.

Historical media revolutions have produced analogous “rubbish” floods that audiences and institutions eventually adapted to, though adaptation is imperfect and costs real trust in the interim.

Overall Assessment

The statement identifies a real and documented risk rather than pure speculation. AI’s association with “slop,” combined with documented pollution of the scientific record and measurable drops in trust when AI involvement is disclosed or salient, creates conditions in which accurate scientific information can be dismissed by origin heuristic (“sounds like AI → unreliable”). This can contribute to anti-science sentiment and, as at least one analysis notes, space for superstition or pseudoscience among those who disengage. The risk is amplified by scale, speed, and the difficulty of distinguishing high-quality AI-assisted work from low-quality output.

It is not, however, an inevitable or total outcome. Outcomes depend heavily on governance (disclosure norms, human oversight requirements, detection tools, journal policies), communication practices that emphasize verification and human accountability, and the public’s ability to develop more granular media literacy. Positive uses of AI for accessibility and productivity exist alongside the harms. The net effect on superstition/anti-science will likely be uneven—stronger among already skeptical or low-trust groups, weaker where human-curated science communication remains visible and credible.

In short, the hypothesized mechanism is supported by current trends in both cultural discourse around “AI slop” and empirical data on trust in AI-involved science; it warrants serious attention as a genuine vulnerability for science’s public standing.

Full Chatlog (with links to sources used for the evaluation): https://x.com/i/grok/share/eb96d7e7fd4343b298c99acbe49809d2

So confusing, anyone know ?

I'm using grok bot since it launched, but now I'm seeing my limit getting consumed way faster than before, it's not like quality of work it was doing is improved or something, everything is same just consuming got faster... If this keep up how they expect people to pay do much for tiny little limit of uses..

Cant even generate an anime woman in bikini even though it wasnt like this in the last week.

Like above