Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
Grimes did not make a verified diss track against Elon Musk. In August 2024, influencer and rapper Elijah Daniel promoted “Nuisance,” a staged track that used an AI-generated imitation of Grimes’ voice and a lookalike in its video. Newsweek reportedly initially believed the clip was genuine, according to Futurism’s account of the episode.
What happened with “Nuisance”?
Daniel’s teaser presented a familiar celebrity-feud story: a voice resembling Grimes delivering a vulgar attack on Musk, with references to Tesla and X. The video reinforced that impression with a person styled as Grimes and footage of the lookalike flipping off a white Tesla. The song and performance were Daniel’s stunt, not a verified Grimes release. Futurism reported that Daniel used Grimes’ Elf Tech AI voice system to make the synthetic vocal.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Visions | $20.17 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Art Angels | $15.87 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Hafaxa | $12.49 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Miss Anthropocene | $16.24 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
DARKBLOOM | $12.59 | Buy on Amazon |
The distinction matters: the audio was an AI-generated imitation, not evidence that Grimes recorded those lyrics. The available reporting does not establish that she personally approved, performed, or endorsed the track. The lyrics were written and presented as part of Daniel’s stunt.
What does “fooled Newsweek” mean?
Futurism reported that Newsweek initially thought the clip was legitimate. That is the claim the available reporting supports. It does not, by itself, establish that Newsweek published a story based on the clip, how long the mistaken belief lasted, who handled verification, or whether the publication issued a correction. It is more accurate to say the clip reportedly fooled the outlet initially than to claim Newsweek published fake news.
#1 Best Overall
- Shrink-wrapped
Daniel said he wanted to see how many people would believe the clip right away. He argued that people already accept misinformation and that AI makes the problem harder. Those comments explain his stated purpose; the episode was not a controlled test of how often people fall for fabricated media.
Why the hoax seemed plausible
The clip’s credibility came from a combination of cues, not just its synthetic voice:
Rank #2
- Shrink-wrapped
- A recognizable voice: The AI imitation could sound plausible in a short, edited clip, even though that does not prove Grimes spoke.
- A visual stand-in: A lookalike gave viewers a person to associate with the vocal.
- A believable narrative: Musk was a plausible target for a provocative celebrity-feud song, given his past relationship with Grimes.
- Specific visual shorthand: A Tesla made the apparent target unmistakable.
- Social-video context: Reposts and brief clips often travel without the original caption, provenance, or enough context to assess them.
Some viewers may have recognized the exaggerated lyrics or Daniel’s reputation for stunts as signs of a joke. But satire can still mislead while it circulates, especially when context is stripped away. The episode is better understood as a multimodal deception: voice, lookalike, lyrics, recognizable feud and platform-native editing reinforced one another.
Grimes’ AI-voice policy is not endorsement
This case was unusually plausible because Grimes had previously invited people to experiment with AI-generated music using an AI version of her voice. WIRED’s background coverage describes that broader approach. But an artist’s openness to voice experiments does not mean the artist made a particular song, approved its lyrics, or endorsed the statement it appears to contain.
Rank #3
Those are separate questions: whether a voice tool was associated with the artist; whether the artist actually recorded the performance; and whether the artist authorized this specific use and presentation. In Daniel’s case, the reporting identifies use of Grimes’ AI voice system, but does not establish her personal approval of “Nuisance.” A voice can be used in a permitted experiment and still be presented in a way that misleads audiences about who said something.
How to check a viral celebrity song or clip
- Check the artist’s official channels. Look for an announcement on verified accounts or the artist’s official site, rather than relying on reposts.
- Check the release itself. See whether the track appears in the artist’s verified discography or is announced by an authorized label or distributor.
- Find the original upload. Reposts may omit captions, parody disclosures, or other context. An original post still does not prove authenticity, but it can clarify how the creator presented the clip.
- Look for explicit AI or parody labeling. Do not assume a realistic voice means a real recording, and do not assume a missing label proves one way or the other.
- Seek independent confirmation. Search for reliable reporting and statements from the artist or their representatives before treating a sensational celebrity feud as fact.
Listening for artifacts or comparing a clip with other recordings may offer clues, but neither is conclusive. A short, edited sample provides little material to assess, and a convincing imitation is not proof of identity. Verification should focus on provenance and confirmation, not on whether the voice merely sounds right.
Rank #4
What the episode does—and does not—show
“Nuisance” illustrates how synthetic audio can be combined with visual impersonation and a plausible story to make a false attribution feel credible. It does not prove that people generally cannot recognize AI, or that every use of an artist’s AI voice is unauthorized. It does show why the distinction between “made with an AI version of this artist’s voice” and “made by this artist” matters.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Futurism’s August 30, 2024 report said neither Grimes nor Musk had responded at the time. That is a historical snapshot, not a claim about their current positions. The available reporting also does not establish whether “Nuisance” received an official release or document the precise newsroom process behind Newsweek’s reported initial belief.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- Shrink-wrapped
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
