Yes. I have grown to intensely dislike the "Grok" metaphor, even though I recognize how important it is for many people to grasp Paleo initially. But I think we run a real risk of letting that get too central to our thinking.
Paleo is a heuristic with which we can solve the Dinner Problem (what to eat for dinner) and which we can use to generate new hypotheses about the world. That's really it: a rough rule of thumb (by no means complete) to figure out what to eat for dinner, and a framework to come up with new ideas to test.
To make this really, really clear: "What did cavemen do in this situation" can only generate hypotheses at best. You can use it to get an idea of what to further investigate. You can use it as you're walking down the grocery aisle and need a quick and dirty solution to the problem of what to put in the cart. You absolutely cannot use it to prove anything.
If you test your ideas with "what did cavemen do" speculation and use that as conclusive, then you've moved away from skeptical empiricism and into mystical dogmatism - a true "paleo principle" mindset leaves you just as mentally constrained as any raw vegan.
There's nothing wrong with thinking from a paleo starting point, but there's everything wrong with failing to test that with actual experiments. That's the essence of science: testing ideas with experimentation. It's an institutional failure that lead us to low-fat idiocy, not a failure of science, and throwing the golden light of knowledge out with the wretched political machinery that constrains it is a bad idea.
So, yes, I agree. I wish people would be more precise in their use of Grok in their reasoning. I think we do paleo no favors when we ground health advice in random speculation about what Grok might have done, because that is truly sloppy reasoning that any paleo critic can easily attack.