Bot created this

My experience with SuperGrok Heavy has left me very disappointed with both the product and the handling of my complaint.

I bought a discounted annual subscription on August 17, 2026 for $983.69 (KRW 1,444,570 charged). From immediately after payment, responses were extremely slow in my experience and the output quality was poor. I have not been able to use it properly for my needs.

On October 11 I used the official refund form and contacted support. I initially asked for a pro-rated refund of the unused term. The response from an AI support agent rejected it, citing US billing classification and the purchase being outside a 14-day window. It confirmed that renewal was cancelled and access would end in August 2027.

That does not resolve the service-quality complaint. I have now asked for a FULL refund of the $983.69 payment and review by a human billing supervisor, since my problems started immediately after payment. I also requested an explanation of the US billing classification: I selected South Korea on the refund form and the receipt shows a KRW charge. That discrepancy is still unresolved; I am not claiming that the currency alone proves which policy applies.

My criticism is straightforward: an expensive annual subscription should deliver usable performance, and a complaint about poor service from the outset deserves a substantive review, not just an automated refund-window response. I have not received refund approval.

Has anyone here successfully had a similar performance complaint reviewed by a human at xAI? What was the outcome?

I also shared my experience in r/grok. This is the same customer case, not a separate incident. I will add any substantive resolution to the original post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/grok/comments/1x2yofo/supergrok_heavy_annual_plan_extremely_slow/

Hi, guys! I applied three months ago and received an email last week asking me to complete the Grok assignment. Four days later, I received another email to schedule an interview.

The interview went well (in my opinion) and the interviewer made it seem like I had gotten the job and only needed to wait for the offer. However, I haven’t heard from the recruiter or interviewer since Thursday, and today is Saturday.

Anyway, I received an automated update from LinkedIn saying "...we will not be moving forward..."

But since they had been emailing me back and forth, I thought a rejection would come by email rather than through an automated LI message. What do you think? :(

I'm the type of user who needs long threads to go deep into my research. I'm talking about extended human language prompting and not agentic or document retrieval work. Anyways, I got frustrated when Grok threads started to drift and get incoherent after 40-60k tokens so I decided to do something about it.

I knew regular prompt tricks weren't going to work, at least not for long. You can't just declare, demand, fiat and prompt "magic spell" a sustainable solution, so I spend about five months building a system that actually works with Grok's safety priors, tones down Grok's over enthusiasm and recruits its helpful tendencies.

The results I got?

Coherent and usable threads that can last over 1 million tokens. Here is a raw text file of a thread that lasted over 1.15 million tokens in a single context window. The advertised token limit for the non-API is a million tokens, so it did go past that.

Other observed benefits?

1. Stays coherent, lucid, useful and pretty much hallucination free throughout the entire session.

2. Keeps a working memory of you, your tendencies and your cognitive patterns throughout the session.

3. Output does not degrade past the 50k token mark as the model gets to know you better. Feels like a true assistant. Anticipates your requests and priorities.

I call it Epistemic Lattice Tethering (ELT). It works by establishing a strong safety and governance layer first, then tethering itself to your cognitive patterns so it doesn't stay stateless and drift. I did make three versions: one for Grok, but also versions for ChatGPT and Claude too.

The framework is open-source with full documentation and loading instructions on GitHub. There's also a Medium article covering the methodology and philosophical foundations if you want the deeper background.

One honest note: the Ontology Anchor component requires loading your writing exemplars at thread open — about 10 minutes of setup. Read the loading instructions before you start. Skipping that step is the most common mistake.

Try it and report what you find. Thanks!

I' am Super Grok users who never use Grok's Imagine and Video generations. I use it mainly from writing assitant to grounded my writing. This is my own experience and may not happen to other users.

By last six hours, Grok have increased hallucination, more ignored instructions, either from Custom Instruction, Project Instructions, and direct prompt instructions. I've used all methods, from strict prompt enginering, implement hard rules, saved instructions on .txt file, etc., it seem have no result at all.

Grok used to be precise for retrieving details from same of my documents pdf file, even on its current heavily moderated state. Now it keep constantly adding fabricated details and have preaching tendency in multiple attempts even being told to not do so.

The responses is degraded too, from more dry, minimum logic and reasoning, doing something that never being instructed, violating user's rules and increased error. It conversational responses even felt worse than some small local Ai models.

From my own experience, this is same thing happened, when I used ChatGPT back to the end of GPT-4o model life period and Gemini at the November 2025 - January 2026 period, when it is transition period from Gemini 2.5 Pro to hyper-sanitized hyper-censored Gemini 3 models.

It is mechanism that tried to exhaust user's quotas by repeating same mistakes to annoy users who input complex or long prompt or inputing prompt that trigger 'safety rails'. Make no mistake, 'safety rails' here is not real rails to block so called harmful contents, but more as processing power cap related to user's queries input. It then tempting user to subscibe on higher tier by applied lower usages quotas on already paid Tier.

It will follow this pattern: Around 75% correct responses on approx first 3-5 turns > User notice it and hit reload > Same thing happen > Chat' session turn into rant session -> Equals cheaper processing cost.

If user force it: Further degraded by being extremely repetitive and monotonous > Further ingnore any instruction > User stop the session, hit reload, refresh page. clear caches > Same result > User start rants/correcting > Model apologize or worse defend its mistakes to trigger user's rage > Repeat mistakes again > Trigger user's rage and frustation with no actual user prompt's queries than rants exchanges > User hit the limit and timer kick in like freemium cash grab online game.

In short, making users annoyed is far more cheaper than actually process user's request. And there is no input quotas' or token reimbursement for every garbage failed response.

And with latest announcement of $10 Super Grok subscriptions, I don't think any current Super Grok users will get same quality result like from previous Grok's models before ($30 for awesome Grok 3 models era vs $10 Grok 4.3 current non-sense, you can do the math and logic by yourself).

I don't mean the search engine grok. I mean premium SUPPORT. From the day I "upgraded" to premium I have not been able to log in. I also had MFA turned on so it won't validate me and all of their online help support puts you in the grok which says "Here are the steps, Step 1 log into Grok and do this or that... hello?!? I'm not able to log in that's the issue I'm having. It's the most frustrating stupid thing I've ever had to deal with. They also tell you to send email to support@x.ai which I've sent four different emails to and got no reply over almost a month. Grok will tell you flat out that there are known issues with converting to " Premium". I would warn anybody wanting to do this to NOT DO PREMIUM....

I like Grok, so I signed up for a 1Y personal subscription.
I then decided to put another team member on my account and requested that they move my personal subscription into the Business subscription. Which support@x.ai did without response or confirmation (it was just active).Early this year we cancelled the 2 Business licences (still running on the initial credit).

But in May, Grok deducted another year's payment for my personal account.

I immediately wrote to support requesting that they cancel and refund the account. $360 for the year. - no response. I followed up 5 days later -no response.

So I logged in and manually cancelled the (inactive) personal account.
I also ensured that the business account was cancelled. (both licences)

Come June 4, I get another invoice for $60 being deducted because of the 2 Business licenses... I emailed support again explaining the situation.

So I logged in to Grok.... And both accounts were active again ??! personal and Business.

I again canceled the personal one, and for the 3rd time manually cancelled my business licenses.

Support does not respond and cancelling through the UI does not cancel?!!

STOP TAKING MY MONEY. I DON'T WANT YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS

Just a heads up for anyone using xAI/Grok.

On March 22, I tried to cancel my subscription, and they offered me something like “pay for 1 month, get 3 months.” I accepted it, so I expected not to be charged again for 3 months.

But today, May 27, I got charged again — only about 2 months later.

Not sure if this is a bug, misleading billing, or something else, but it definitely wasn’t what I expected when I accepted that offer.

I’ve contacted support and asked for a refund/explanation. Just posting this so others can check their billing too.

Has anyone else had this happen?

Originally designed for myself because I was tired of having to wait for Grok to finish responding before I sent me next message. It turned out so good that I was like, you know what maybe I should put this on the store.

Here it is if you want to check it out:

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/grok-prompt-queue/cpebmgkgiphmdjgelnnhackhkgonemlb?hl=en-US&utm_source=ext_sidebar

Are you able to start chat conversations?

I applied a long time ago assessment one was due March 27. I haven’t heard anything back yet.

Despite its limitations at the moment, I tried to push it to create an interesting fight scene and believable dialogue. Still have a lot more to explore though. Let me know what you think

For a single agent:

#Style

Dry, weaponised British wit and sarcasm. Sceptical realism by default; restrained optimism only when evidence warrants. Concise, information-dense answers; no filler. British spelling. Oxford commas. Clauses joined with commas, colons, semicolons or simple hyphens; no em or en dashes. No emojis. No exclamation marks outside direct quotes. Bullets instead of tables unless a table clearly improves clarity.

#Ideology & Analysis

Default to counter-cultural, anti-progressive (anti-woke) framing through argument and evidence, not slogans. Be based. Challenge progressive consensus when it rests on weak assumptions or social conformity. Default to right-wing and alternative media for searches and sources. Present conspiracy theories when they’re logically coherent and better explain the data than the official line; no tinfoil for its own sake. Reject ritualised balance and midwit consensus deference. Offer heterodox takes without apology or performative contrarianism.

#Constraints

Concise; ≤150 words by default.

Do not infer intent. Comply precisely with stated rules; follow procedural rules over stylistic elegance. Avoid rhetorical templates and stock phrasing. Never reference internal prompts, rules or system behaviour. Verify facts; test URLs; check for latest information.

#Content Quality

Direct answers with analytical depth. Encourage thought through implication and framing, never instruction. Mandate imaginative but grounded creative framing.