I find it interesting that there's loads of people who made a core part of their identity campaigning against trans men being in women's spaces and how it impacts women, who have gone completely silent about Grok being used to undress and brutalise women.
If you're wondering on xAI's stance on this, aside from Elon posting a crying with laughing emoji, Grok's creators have raised a further $20bn from Cisco and such yesterday. reuters.com/business/musks-xai…
If you're wondering what consequences X has faced: none. At all. A few months ago when Grok called itself MechaHitler, the service was shut entirely for days, the same day. When this women issue happened, Elon laughed.
Grok is still outputting non-consensual deepfake pornography and sexual abuse material at a rate of 1 post per second. Example search:
It'll be a matter of time til Meta actually considers this a feature. Absurd to think this is legitimately the worst feature i've ever seen in my life.
Grok is unleashing an apocalypse much to demoralize everyone else who keeps using X to post their drawings, but it'll also plague everything posted there. In which means we're going to say goodbye to the art and photos we've used to love.
Anyway, X wasn't actually designed to post portfolios.
Wired has a look at videos created on Grok. Includes knives being inserted into vaginas, “very young” people having sex. Around 10% are CSAM and still online. xAI declined to comment.
The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) says its analysts have discovered "criminal imagery" of girls aged between 11 and 13 which "appears to have been created" using Grok. bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg1mz…
NEW: A statement in response to Grok AI on X.
An ICO spokesperson said: "People have a right to use social media knowing their personal data is being handled lawfully and with respect.
The UK PM has asked communication regulator for options around banning Twitter from operating in the UK, due to their refusal to deal with unconsensual undressing of women and girls. telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/…
It looks like the threat of X being banned in the UK worked - Grok has been limited to paid users. Take your crying with laughter emojis and stick them up your arse, Elon. bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99kn5…
The UK government says the move by X to limit Grok to paid users is “insulting” and basically monetising abuse, and they would support a ban of X in the UK if recommended by the regulator. They’ve asked the regulator for recommendations in days. bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99kn5…
Ugh Grok is so gross, I had a Senior Manager at my current job who is in charge of our AI tell me GROK was A-OK to use within our company even though everything about it and X goes against our companies policies.
I now assume is just another incel tech bro who only cares about himself and hates others because he is a small minded man.
I plan to report him to HR when I get back to the office on Monday. 😀
Some Grok users, mostly men, began to demand to see bruising on the bodies of the women, and for blood to be added to the images. Requests to show women tied up and gagged were instantly granted.
The ‘put her in a bikini’ trend rapidly evolved into hundreds of thousands of requests to strip clothes from photos of women, horrifying those targeted
I asked Cisco why it is directly funding an AI tool being used to non-consensual undress and brutalise women and children, having this week invested in xAI. They replied No comment.
I have a list of other cybersecurity providers invested in xAI, I am working my way through those and plan to feature the key staff members involved in a write up.
They may fine X 10% of its global revenue, require all advertisers to withdraw as an X client, and require UK internet providers to block X. ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/ill…
The UK government is to enforce a law this week which will make it a criminal offence to create non-consensual intimate images and make a new law to make tools to create non-consensual intimate images illegal bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq845g…
A new YouGov survey shows that the British public overwhelmingly believe AI companies should not be allowed to generate such imagery. Fully 96% of Britons say that firms should not be allowed to generate ‘undressed’ images of children (only 1% say they should), with 87% saying the same regarding such images of adults (5% think this is ok). yougov.co.uk/technology/articl…
X has finally climbed down over Grok generating non-consensual undressing, after many of the major regulators got involved.
I’d strongly recommend countries have robust laws and regulation in place for GenAI being used to brutalise women and minorities as ultimately the whole episode shows it’s only external pressure that will hold companies accountable, not self regulation and common sense. X basically tried to monetise incels harassing people.
@ai6yr X must be shut down. It would be really interesting if you know around 5 o’clock in the morning when it’s still really dark, Apple stores would have some wonderful street art added in front of them.
and don't forget to prosecute for providing that service for the time that it did. Aiding and abetting the creation and dispersal of CSAM is illegal pretty much everywhere. Take them to court for it. Take the decisionmakers in the company to court. Throw the book at them. Hard. Maybe then they'l learn to at least follow the law. Being decent human beings is sadly beyond them.
The UK’s Information Commissioners Office has opened another investigation into X, citing serious concerns about the company’s behaviour around AI. bloomberg.com/news/articles/20…
Reuters reports Grok is still generating non-consensual sexualised images of people - even when told the subjects don’t consent. reuters.com/business/despite-n…
An investigation led by the French authorities is currently underway concerning the online platform X, in relation to the proliferation of illegal content, notably the production of deepfakes, child sexual abuse material, and content contesting crime…
@futurebird Limiting Grok to paid users (here in the UK) probably won't save Grok in the UK, though. Possession of CSAM is a strict liability offense, as is distributing it. Doesn't matter whether it's a paid account or free, it's child pornography (usually a max 3 year prison sentence, but if aggravated can pull 10 years). Generating it is ALSO a criminal offense.
@Seruko @cstross @futurebird It isn't. Call me cynical, but the only reason X is still standing is
1) CSAM is not its primary purpose 2) It's large and has lots of money 3) well known figures are on it
If it was a small server hosted in the UK it would already have been taken down.
It doesn't provide a fig leaf, it's just that the law has not (yet) caught up with end users using it to generate illegal content.
I'd also note that if CSAM can be located the first action is typically to seize all the computers.
Expect phase 1 - if X doesn't fix this, it'll be added to the Great British Firewall which currently blocks CSAM and a few proscribed groups. I don't see the government backing down.
phase 2 - police investigation. Anyone that can be identified, *especially* those stupid enough to try creating unwanted images of MPs, will be prosecuted.
Phase 3 - shine a light on people using VPNs to get around geoblocking or age verification for entirely legitimate content. Great.. 🙁.
@syllopsium @Seruko @cstross Is this true for “fictional” CSAM ? Or are there some loopholes?
I hate arguing about these definitions. We all know a photo of your kid playing at the beach is fine— a drawing of the same is fine— but I expect these people to try to hide behind such technicalities and distinctions.
Never mind that we are talking about NOT your kid. And you never asked for it.
@futurebird @syllopsium @Seruko Fictional CSAM is already illegal in the UK. There have been multiple prosecutions. (There's no US first amendment style right to free speech here.)
Could US law cover the *distribution* of such material?
Right now we have a popular “top ten” phone app with this garbage. Worse than if it were broadcast on public airwaves or put up on a poster in the public square.
This is a worst case scenario from bad internet debates about porn, gore and obscenity laws come to life.
And I feel like the worst creeps I’ve ever known are whispering “actually it’s called eubuphila” as if that were a serious argument.
@futurebird @cstross The simple grim fact of the matter is that the free speech absolutist position that a government able to ban speech will use this power to suppress its political opponents isn't wrong, and that the position that it is a necessary function of the civil power to suppress CSAM, never mind for-profit, mass production CSAM, isn't wrong, either.
It's a basic systems theory thing that if you get this kind of unresolvable deadlock you're looking at wrong scale.
@futurebird @cstross Leaving aside the "just what are we doing wrong as a society that there is such a market" and the "computers aren't real" cultural lag, it's a choice; either there are things the civil power is obliged to suppress to permit life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be possible, or that's all supposed to be handled by socially mediated means at individual scales.
Since we permit massive corporate entities, the later is equivalent to enslaving the population.
@futurebird @cstross It may well all come down to how corporations are defined, which was a specific project that didn't go through the legislature much; it's a lot like someone recreating an aristocracy through something that looks enormously like how charter land (that is, gifts of land in perpetuity to religious foundations since you couldn't give a temporary gift to an eternal god) created private property a thousand years and more ago.
tl;dr get rid of the special status of corporations.
I think it is important that in the past grok did not generate such content, but Mr.Musk decided and implemented changes to make this kind of content possible. Implicitly this is an attempt to either challenge the law, or based on a deep belief that the law should not apply to him.
Which reminds me of the Epstein files, and all of those child marraige cults.
Every time we fail to hold the powerful accountable they increase the abuse.
@futurebird @lemgandi Yep. We're ALSO being asked to believe amazing bullshit like "pregnant women are not people" (they lose rights to bodily autonomy because magic sky daddy said ectopic foetus is more important than life) at the same time as "corporations are people".
Both these propositions are, I repeat, bullshit on stilts.
Do I need to say “of course she is” —Do I need to say this isn’t how you treat a person?
I’m thinking of so many people who are gone forever without a whisper. I’m looking at every brash and angry conservative voice who is trying justice shooting a person for not being meek and wondering why they don’t realize they are vulnerable too.
Do we keep the gay republicans? the brown ones? what about the ones who can’t ignore mr. epstein?
(7) “ Pseudo-photograph ” means an image, whether made by computer-graphics or otherwise howsoever, which appears to be a photograph. (8) If the impression conveyed by a pseudo-photograph is that the person shown is a child, the pseudo-photograph shall be treated for all purposes of this Act as showing a child and so shall a pseudo-photograph where the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child notwithstanding that some of the physical characteristics shown are those of an adult.
An Act to prevent the exploitation of children by making indecent photographs of them; and to penalise the distribution, showing and advertisement of such indecent photographs.
It’s fascinating that payment processors and app stores happily bullied Tumblr over female presenting nipples and have kicked adult game creators off of Steam, but have been completely silent on CSAM and misogyny generated on X
Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •reshared this
Arnold Knijn, Joe Vinegar, Robert Kingett e GhostOnTheHalfShell reshared this.
Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •reuters.com/business/musks-xai…
reshared this
Arnold Knijn reshared this.
Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •If you're wondering what consequences X has faced: none. At all. A few months ago when Grok called itself MechaHitler, the service was shut entirely for days, the same day. When this women issue happened, Elon laughed.
Grok is still outputting non-consensual deepfake pornography and sexual abuse material at a rate of 1 post per second. Example search:
from:@grok filter:media
Direct link:
x.com/search?q=from%3A%40grok%…
I hope Cisco enjoy directly funding sexual abuse material.
reshared this
Arnold Knijn, Vee, Erik Jonker e FKA ZOG reshared this.
[AF]2050
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •It'll be a matter of time til Meta actually considers this a feature. Absurd to think this is legitimately the worst feature i've ever seen in my life.
Grok is unleashing an apocalypse much to demoralize everyone else who keeps using X to post their drawings, but it'll also plague everything posted there. In which means we're going to say goodbye to the art and photos we've used to love.
Anyway, X wasn't actually designed to post portfolios.
Vee
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •Wired has a look at videos created on Grok. Includes knives being inserted into vaginas, “very young” people having sex. Around 10% are CSAM and still online. xAI declined to comment.
wired.com/story/grok-is-genera…
Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •IWF finds sexual imagery of children which 'appears to have been' made by Grok
Chris Vallance (BBC News)Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •NEW: A statement in response to Grok AI on X.
Information Commissioner's Office (www.linkedin.com)Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •Elon Musk’s X could be banned in Britain over AI chatbot row
Matthew Field (The Telegraph)reshared this
Roni Rolle Laukkarinen, Arnold Knijn, Lesley Carhart e Lord Caramac the Clueless, KSC reshared this.
Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •Wendy Nather
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •Elon Musk's Grok AI image editing limited to paid users after deepfakes
Liv McMahon (BBC News)Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •Elon Musk's Grok AI image editing limited to paid users after deepfakes
Liv McMahon (BBC News)Justin
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •Ugh Grok is so gross, I had a Senior Manager at my current job who is in charge of our AI tell me GROK was A-OK to use within our company even though everything about it and X goes against our companies policies.
I now assume is just another incel tech bro who only cares about himself and hates others because he is a small minded man.
I plan to report him to HR when I get back to the office on Monday. 😀
Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •Some Grok users, mostly men, began to demand to see bruising on the bodies of the women, and for blood to be added to the images. Requests to show women tied up and gagged were instantly granted.
‘Add blood, forced smile’
theguardian.com/news/ng-intera…
‘Add blood, forced smile’: how Grok’s nudification tool went viral
Amelia Gentleman (The Guardian)[AF]2050
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •I asked Cisco why it is directly funding an AI tool being used to non-consensual undress and brutalise women and children, having this week invested in xAI. They replied No comment.
I have a list of other cybersecurity providers invested in xAI, I am working my way through those and plan to feature the key staff members involved in a write up.
reshared this
Pseudo Nym reshared this.
Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •Who’s who at X, the deepfake porn site formerly known as Twitter
Bryce Elder (Financial Times)reshared this
Justin, Annalee Newitz 🍜 e Ben Tasker reshared this.
[AF]2050
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •OFCOM have opened a formal investigation into X.
They may fine X 10% of its global revenue, require all advertisers to withdraw as an X client, and require UK internet providers to block X. ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/ill…
reshared this
Giuseppe Aceto, Em, JustSaying e anna_lillith 🇺🇦🌱🐖 reshared this.
Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •UK to bring into force law this week to tackle Grok AI deepfakes
BBC Newsreshared this
Murray GM - Paperposts reshared this.
Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •AI tools should not be allowed to make ‘undressed’ images, say Britons
Matthew Smith (YouGov)Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •California investigates Grok over AI deepfakes
Lily Jamali (BBC News)reshared this
Lesley Carhart reshared this.
Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •X has finally climbed down over Grok generating non-consensual undressing, after many of the major regulators got involved.
I’d strongly recommend countries have robust laws and regulation in place for GenAI being used to brutalise women and minorities as ultimately the whole episode shows it’s only external pressure that will hold companies accountable, not self regulation and common sense. X basically tried to monetise incels harassing people.
reshared this
GhostOnTheHalfShell e Neil Brown reshared this.
GhostOnTheHalfShell
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •AI6YR Ben
in reply to GhostOnTheHalfShell • • •GhostOnTheHalfShell
in reply to AI6YR Ben • • •@ai6yr
X must be shut down. It would be really interesting if you know around 5 o’clock in the morning when it’s still really dark, Apple stores would have some wonderful street art added in front of them.
Pedo App Store
Gurre Vildskägg
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •Maybe then they'l learn to at least follow the law. Being decent human beings is sadly beyond them.
Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •EU opens formal probe into X over Grok deepfakes.
They will be looking at what controls xAI had.
Spoiler: you could reply to any woman on X and ask it to remove her clothes, so not many controls.
ft.com/content/f5ed0160-7098-4…
Client Challenge
www.ft.comKevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •reshared this
Frédéric Jacobs, Marco, Lorna Woods e Erik Jonker reshared this.
Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •Europol supports French investigation into alleged criminal activity linked to platform X
Europolreshared this
Erik Jonker reshared this.
Kevin Beaumont
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •This Washington Post story has sparked a whole bunch of regulatory interest in xAI and X, unsurprisingly: washingtonpost.com/technology/…
Unpaywalled: archive.ph/i9z7w
I imagine X may see some corporate credit card transactions for shredders soon.
Matt Palmer
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •myrmepropagandist
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •So it *was* a marketing campaign.
I don't see how this helps at all.
Charlie Stross
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •Kofi Loves Efia
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •Pete / Syllopsium
in reply to Kofi Loves Efia • • •@Seruko @cstross @futurebird It isn't. Call me cynical, but the only reason X is still standing is
1) CSAM is not its primary purpose
2) It's large and has lots of money
3) well known figures are on it
If it was a small server hosted in the UK it would already have been taken down.
It doesn't provide a fig leaf, it's just that the law has not (yet) caught up with end users using it to generate illegal content.
I'd also note that if CSAM can be located the first action is typically to seize all the computers.
Expect phase 1 - if X doesn't fix this, it'll be added to the Great British Firewall which currently blocks CSAM and a few proscribed groups. I don't see the government backing down.
phase 2 - police investigation. Anyone that can be identified, *especially* those stupid enough to try creating unwanted images of MPs, will be prosecuted.
Phase 3 - shine a light on people using VPNs to get around geoblocking or age verification for entirely legitimate content. Great.. 🙁.
myrmepropagandist
in reply to Pete / Syllopsium • • •@syllopsium @Seruko @cstross
Is this true for “fictional” CSAM ? Or are there some loopholes?
I hate arguing about these definitions. We all know a photo of your kid playing at the beach is fine— a drawing of the same is fine— but I expect these people to try to hide behind such technicalities and distinctions.
Never mind that we are talking about NOT your kid. And you never asked for it.
Furby
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •Government accused of dragging its heels on deepfake law over Grok AI
Laura Cress (BBC News)myrmepropagandist reshared this.
Charlie Stross
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •myrmepropagandist
in reply to Charlie Stross • • •@cstross
Could US law cover the *distribution* of such material?
Right now we have a popular “top ten” phone app with this garbage. Worse than if it were broadcast on public airwaves or put up on a poster in the public square.
This is a worst case scenario from bad internet debates about porn, gore and obscenity laws come to life.
And I feel like the worst creeps I’ve ever known are whispering “actually it’s called eubuphila” as if that were a serious argument.
myrmepropagandist reshared this.
Dave Wilburn
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •@futurebird @cstross
I believe it is already covered as a criminal offense in the US under Title 18 Section 1466A.
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…
18 U.S. Code § 1466A - Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
Office of the Law Revision Counsel (LII / Legal Information Institute)Graydon
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •@futurebird @cstross The simple grim fact of the matter is that the free speech absolutist position that a government able to ban speech will use this power to suppress its political opponents isn't wrong, and that the position that it is a necessary function of the civil power to suppress CSAM, never mind for-profit, mass production CSAM, isn't wrong, either.
It's a basic systems theory thing that if you get this kind of unresolvable deadlock you're looking at wrong scale.
Graydon
in reply to Graydon • • •@futurebird @cstross Leaving aside the "just what are we doing wrong as a society that there is such a market" and the "computers aren't real" cultural lag, it's a choice; either there are things the civil power is obliged to suppress to permit life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be possible, or that's all supposed to be handled by socially mediated means at individual scales.
Since we permit massive corporate entities, the later is equivalent to enslaving the population.
Graydon
in reply to Graydon • • •@futurebird @cstross It may well all come down to how corporations are defined, which was a specific project that didn't go through the legislature much; it's a lot like someone recreating an aristocracy through something that looks enormously like how charter land (that is, gifts of land in perpetuity to religious foundations since you couldn't give a temporary gift to an eternal god) created private property a thousand years and more ago.
tl;dr get rid of the special status of corporations.
myrmepropagandist
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •@cstross
I think it is important that in the past grok did not generate such content, but Mr.Musk decided and implemented changes to make this kind of content possible. Implicitly this is an attempt to either challenge the law, or based on a deep belief that the law should not apply to him.
Which reminds me of the Epstein files, and all of those child marraige cults.
Every time we fail to hold the powerful accountable they increase the abuse.
lemgandi
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •@futurebird @cstross
Wilhoit's Law
myrmepropagandist
in reply to lemgandi • • •@lemgandi @cstross
At some point the conservative needs to stop playing coy and come out and just say who is a person and who isn’t to them.
They don’t want to do this because they don’t even agree.
We are being asked “is a not poor lesbian white lady a person or not?”
And that is the debate.
reshared this
myrmepropagandist e Aral Balkan reshared this.
Charlie Stross
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •@futurebird @lemgandi Yep. We're ALSO being asked to believe amazing bullshit like "pregnant women are not people" (they lose rights to bodily autonomy because magic sky daddy said ectopic foetus is more important than life) at the same time as "corporations are people".
Both these propositions are, I repeat, bullshit on stilts.
Aral Balkan reshared this.
Alex Feinman
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •@futurebird @lemgandi @cstross No, no, the uncertainty is part of the attack.
You never know what to do to avoid the abuse, so you oppress yourself.
See also the spotty enforcement of speed limits, etc.
myrmepropagandist
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •@lemgandi @cstross
Do I need to say “of course she is” —Do I need to say this isn’t how you treat a person?
I’m thinking of so many people who are gone forever without a whisper. I’m looking at every brash and angry conservative voice who is trying justice shooting a person for not being meek and wondering why they don’t realize they are vulnerable too.
Do we keep the gay republicans? the brown ones? what about the ones who can’t ignore mr. epstein?
Charlie Stross
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •myrmepropagandist
in reply to lemgandi • • •@lemgandi @cstross
I thought this response was about my other post — though they are related.
Erin 💽✨
in reply to myrmepropagandist • • •@futurebird @syllopsium @Seruko @cstross In the UK since 1995 it’s an unequivocal yes:
Protection of Children Act 1978
www.legislation.gov.ukmyrmepropagandist
in reply to Pete / Syllopsium • • •The law needs to catch up on privacy rights. Especially in the US.
Steff 🏳️⚧️ 🏳️🌈
in reply to Kevin Beaumont • • •reshared this
Oblomov, myrmepropagandist e Robert Kingett reshared this.
Robert Kingett
in reply to Steff 🏳️⚧️ 🏳️🌈 • • •myrmepropagandist
Unknown parent • • •Delete grok