Elon Musk: SpaceX Will Choose the Most Suitable Backend Model for Each Task
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk posted a message explaining that SpaceX will select the most suitable backend model for each task, naming Claude Opus 5.5, MidJourney, Suno, and other leading interfaces. The only standard is which model is most likely to produce the best results.
The post did not specify routing rules, pricing, or whether data would leave the original environment. As a result, Grok Bot has been transformed from a single model display layer to a task-distributing layer. Complex writing, reasoning, and coding can be handled by Opus 5.5, images by MidJourney, and music by Suno. He did not mention their own Grok 4.7 in this statement, nor did he say whether users could choose themselves.
The supplementary explanation made the distribution more specific: simple questions will use smaller, faster models, while complex answers will use larger models. Someone on SpaceX's AI product side mentioned that Opus 5.5 has been integrated into the Bot for some time. During a customer call, the other party used it to process functional requests, producing product requirements within seconds, with a cloud agent completing the function and returning changes as a mergeable pull request.
The timing coincides with the recent release of their own model. Weeks ago, SpaceX released Grok 4.7, claiming it could compete with cutting-edge models in coding and knowledge work. This time, there was still no announcement of discontinuing their own models. Earlier arrangements had Anthropic using SpaceX's Colossus data center to train and run Claude, with computing power rented to competitors that Musk has publicly criticized.
After the post was published, it received over 90,000 likes, about 6,800 shares, and over 6,000 replies. Some replies asked about the isolation of other models and data boundaries, as some users chose Grok because they felt it was safer. Others asked whether the distribution was system-determined or if users could specify. Neither question was answered in the original post.
The buyers are users seeking results from Grok Bot, while the sellers are Anthropic, MidJourney, Suno, and other mentioned interfaces. This is a routing policy-driven invocation, not a disclosed procurement amount. Money is shifted from a single model subscription to task-based billing for external interfaces. The beneficiary is SpaceX, which still controls the entry and scheduling, while the pressure is on closed assistants that must rely on their own models to win every task.
The Bot will first launch on iPhone, then expand to iPad, Mac, and web. The list of interfaces is written as an open item, with Opus, MidJourney, and Suno as examples.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Elon Musk's approach with xAI is a vertical closed loop: proprietary models, proprietary data centers, and then embedding Grok into his own products. Colossus initially served for training, then rented capacity to Anthropic to run Claude. Weeks after the release of Grok 4.7, the Bot is now distributing tasks to Opus 5.5, MidJourney, and Suno. The path has shifted from "doing everything in-house" to "keeping the entry point, using whoever is strongest in the backend."
This results in a split in revenue. Training and data centers remain on SpaceX's side, while inference flows to external interfaces based on tasks. Reports indicate Opus 5.5 is priced at $4 per million tokens for input and $20 for output, higher than Grok 4.5's $2 and $6. Internally, it has already been used to write requirements during calls and submit mergeable changes, indicating that the more expensive model is used for complex tasks, while cheaper models handle simple queries. The motivation is result conversion, not relinquishing model layers.
This is similar to how Amazon Web Services rents shelf space to competitors and Android phones come pre-installed with multiple services. Apple has long tied chips and systems together, while Amazon allows competitors' software to run on its machines and takes a cut. Grok Bot is currently at the stage of controlling the entry point: models can change, but users still enter through the same Bot. Musk stated weeks ago that future versions would surpass competitors, and self-research has not been canceled by this statement.
Essentially, this is a transfer of pricing power. Model companies rely on benchmarks and pricing per million tokens, while entry companies charge based on "which task should call whom." The mechanism is that users want requirement documents, images, and music, not ownership of parameters. Whoever schedules Opus, MidJourney, and Suno takes on the selection cost and data boundaries. Models can still be self-developed, but the transaction price for single tasks is now determined by routing.
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
Keep the entry point, and the backend can use whoever is strongest.
Models may lag behind, but scheduling power will not.
Users buy results, not ownership of parameters.