A now-deleted post from crypto analyst Steph Is Crypto centered on an experiment involving Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence chatbot, Grok, and quickly became a point of interest within the digital asset space.
The post shared an image containing several well-known figures associated with the crypto industry. It documented a prompt asking Grok to remove what was described as the “worst CEO” from the image. Grok’s response, which removed Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse, became the focus of the post before it was taken down.
At face value, the result suggested that the AI system had identified Garlinghouse as the least effective chief executive among those shown. However, the composition of the image and the professional roles of the individuals included introduce important context that complicates that interpretation.
A Mix of Roles, Not a Group of CEOs
While Brad Garlinghouse is clearly the chief executive officer of Ripple, several of the other individuals featured in the image do not hold CEO positions. One of the figures positioned near Garlinghouse is Anatoly Yakovenko, the co-founder of Solana. A co-founder role, particularly in decentralized or semi-decentralized projects, does not automatically imply the position of chief executive officer.
Another prominent individual included in the image is Vitalik Buterin, the co-founder of Ethereum. Ethereum does not operate under a conventional corporate structure, and Buterin was never the CEO of the network. His influence is widely acknowledged, but it exists outside the traditional executive model implied by the prompt given to Grok.
The image also included Michael Saylor, who previously served as the CEO of MicroStrategy. Saylor stepped down from that role and now serves as executive chairman. At the time relevant to the image, he was no longer the company’s chief executive, making his inclusion under the label of “CEO” inaccurate.
Questions About the Accuracy of the Outcome
When viewed in this light, Grok’s decision to remove Garlinghouse appears less like a comparison among peers and more like a flawed response to an imprecise setup.
If most of the individuals shown were not CEOs, then the premise of identifying the “worst CEO” was already inconsistent. Garlinghouse stood out as one of the few participants in the image who clearly fit the criteria stated in the prompt.
We are on X, follow us to connect with us :- @TimesTabloid1
— TimesTabloid (@TimesTabloid1) June 15, 2025
This raises questions about whether the AI evaluated executive performance at all, or whether it defaulted to selecting a recognizable CEO without accounting for the differing roles of the others in the image.
Limits of AI Interpretation
The now-deleted post from Steph Is Crypto ultimately highlighted the limitations of using AI tools to make judgments that rely heavily on context and role-specific accuracy. Grok’s response demonstrated how easily an output can be misinterpreted when the underlying assumptions of a prompt are not aligned with reality.
Rather than serving as a definitive assessment of leadership quality, the incident illustrates how AI-generated conclusions can reflect gaps in contextual understanding, especially in an industry where titles and responsibilities are not uniform across projects.
Disclaimer: This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are advised to conduct thorough research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses.
Follow us on X, Facebook, Telegram, and Google News
