If you're still on X are you ok with what Grok's been doing?

[user4532789]

Young girls, un-consenting women and now this

‪@eliothiggins.bsky.social‬
Just seen Grok putting the body of the victim of the ICE shooting in Minneapolis into a bikini. Digital corpse desecration now available to the public.
13:30 · 8 Jan 2026

Well that is just political posturing really. The argument is, does what Grok does harm women and children (maybe men too?). That is the question to be addressed. That is enforcing the law and protecting those people.

But again, my point is that this is where the pornification and creation/manipulation of images via the use of AI has been leading to, and all warnings about this have been dismissed.

'Right wing posters support child porn... under the guise of Free Speech....we get that'

Only paedophiles 'support' child abuse <there is no such thing as child porn>.

Really grasping at straws aren't you.

I don’t wish to be obtuse, but warning of something does not mean anyone will listen.

The point about this is that generation of this material is now being facilitated by AI (Grok) and the content is unlawful. The UK has old laws about this, but they should apply in this AI age.

The need for protection remains. Arguably the need to protect is greater, because of the rapidity of generation. Some of this stuff will be illegal to possess in the UK by an individual, and those people still need to be prosecuted. Arguably their intent is more clear that it has ever been, because usually paedophiles who favour “naked children” or near nude children imagery argue they have no intent, or they have artistic merit.

Some big attempts on here aimed at women. I wonder if they direct any of this at men. Or choose to get off the internet entirely since it’s full of awful stuff.

I doubt it, it’s just berate women on mumsnet of course. Easy pickings.

Absolutely, it does need stopping.

But you also have to resist the urge to engage in purity spirals and moral posturing. Statements such as:

Right wing posters support child porn... under the guise of Free Speech....we get that

are blatantly provocative and are trying to polarise the issue. It's not a case of left is good and moral, right is evil and immoral. The misuse of AI and the defence of CSA/barely legal/lolicon is carried out by all sides of the political spectrum (and it's also using American bi-partisanship into the debate whereas the UK is not so polarised)

Btw CSAM is very popular on the internet; I don’t mean to imply that somehow Grok is unique. But facilitating production and distribution of CSAM is where X is taking a “free speech” position is going to polarize. Conflating the issues gives it a political edge that isn’t necessary. This is just about the law.

The morality of using a platform that generates CSAM on demand is an ethical issue. That’s where the politics comes in. Is that support? Lots of questions on that - the UK government would have to decide for itself?

Ethically it is an issue; for example, a direct analogy is saying you buy books from a bookshop that also sells CSAM. You are supporting that business. You could get books elsewhere, but you go to the place that sells CSAM. No you don’t participate, but you don’t have concern either. Thats an individual decision.

An ex work colleague of mine was charged with making CSAM images, which meant that he had downloaded them from a website, thereby making a copy.
He found the images on porn sites from Google, would you also ban google?
Chat GPT can make the same images.
It’s just because they are ideologically opposed to Musk.

I think k its more: Musk's handmaidens here support Grok creating CSAM and X hosting the images because it's Musk.🤷‍♀️

I doubt they would be tying themselves in knots defending Grok and X if it was owned by Bill Gates or anyone else.

No there are three separate points;

a) The generation of CSAM media immediately. That is a different legal example from Google. There is an immediate, purposeful harm being done in one step. And one of the problems is the extreme realism; because then there are no intermediate steps by a user, it’s simply done to generate CSAM and that capability is built in. So AI makes. Google does not “make”.

b) The individual in both cases is still culpable. They “make”.

c) If ChatGPT has the same capability which can be used, then the same issue applies. But while you assert that point, I cannot find a case. In any event, if ChatGPT had a historic case but then altered the algorithm then it would be okay.

If it’s that, can you name any single poster who has supported Grok creating CSAM images?

The debate seems to be more about those who want to ban X and those who either don’t, or who have challenged some reasons advanced as being disingenuous or ideologically-motivated.

Nope, its about changing Grok so it cannot be used to undress women against their consent and to produce CASM.

Musk has refused to do this.

Sharing images like this and creating them, is against UK law, Musk is breaking this law.

If you support Musk and will not back X being banned should he continue to ignore UK laws, then you also support the making /sharing of such images, there is no middle ground here.

As we cannot arrest Musk, as we would a UK citizen, the only effective action is to ban X and/or issue fines etc which he would ignore...

The Freedom of Speech argument seems to be because those on the right support Musk and his backing of the far right

I hope Musk will obey UK law, then X can carry on as before.

You’ve taken one final point in a hypothetical chain of events, defined away all other options or off-ramps, and decided on the strength of this that large numbers of MNers are supportive of CSAM?

That’s as pathetic as saying: “you don’t support banning all immigration. You support the industrial scale rape of girls. There is no middle ground”.

Bad faith and a waste of everyone’s time. I doubt there’s a single MNer on this board who supports CSAM, whatever else we might agree or differ on.

One thing I can’t understand is why people don’t install browser extensions or apps to maintain peace online, including on X. It’s ridiculous not to use the tools available to create and protect your peace when they work so well! You can enjoy X without seeing what you don’t want to see, rather than being a keyboard warrior telling others what they should or shouldn’t do with their online lives.

Yep. Plus pp having a go at women rather than men for some reason.

Me too.

I don't want X banned. I want the Grok pornify mode banned and I want X to stop hosting the sexualised images it creates of unwilling victims.

It looks as if the Government is very unhappy about the response and will make emergency legislation in a week. I do not know what the OFCOM report said but clearly the intention is prevent companies promoting and making money from these tools.

The OFCOM report will have been some sort of variation of "What do you want us to do about it ?" mashed up with "Nothing we can do, guv".

I mean the only difference between OFWAT and OFCOM is orthographic - they are indistinguishably useless.

I’ve never seen any nasty images on X; although I have seen some pretty unpleasant racist stuff. I mostly see reports about feminism (Julie Bindel, Helen Joyce and Tribunal Tweets), Formula One, Larry the Cat and the Japanese Ambassador who does a fabulous job. It’s been interesting that X has been way ahead of mainstream media in reporting on the protest in Iran.

So you want a platform that now, beyond doubt, knows that a feature in its AI offering is used to produced CSA images and undress women but refuses to do anything about, to continue as it is?

Thats what you're saying, Musk has refused to remove this but you want it to stay.

You re either for the protection of children etc or your not.... where is the middle ground? there isn't any.

As for Musk, he was quick enough to come very strongly last year on rape gangs but is ok with offering a means to produce CSA images...

It's not Grok doing it. It's men.

So you want a platform that now, beyond doubt, knows that a feature in its AI offering is used to produced CSA images and undress women but refuses to do anything about, to continue as it is?

No. I want it to change.

I just don't want X to be banned.

Come on. "So, you want immigrants, who have been proved to commit rape and show no sign of stopping, to continue as they are? That's what you are saying? You won't send them all home, so you must love girls being industrially raped".

It's a pathetic way of debating.

Do you, in fact, want all immigrants sent home?

(Clearly, I don't want all immigrants to be sent home. I just feel our exchange is lacking something, and felt if we can both accuse each other of supporting sexual abuse that might improve it. That's what great debate is, right?).

That’s fine. If people don’t want X banned then there’s not much divergence on here I reckon.

Right wing posters support child porn... under the guise of Free Speech....we get that

Disgusting comment. One of the worst things I've read on this site. You should apologise and educate yourself.

X said: "We take action against illegal content on X, including CSAM, by removing it, permanently suspending accounts, and working with local governments and law enforcement as necessary.

"Anyone using or prompting Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content."

You might think it's insufficient. I might think it's insufficient. But that is not "refuses to do anything about it".

That is exactly how all responsible social media platforms deal with illegal content.

Grok is a generative AI model. It has not been programmed with some feature to remove clothes. It's a byproduct of its general capabilities. Powerful GenAI models including Gemini (Google) and Dall-E have the same problem. Not to mention open-weight models that anyone can run and therefore anyone can do the same thing with (I don't hear any clamour on this thread to ban those... but why not?)

This is a very new technology and we are grappling with how to deal with it, as a society, to mitigate the harms while capturing the benefits. Different societies, and different people in society, are going to come to different provisional positions on how that should be done. As the technology evolves and as we come to terms with it, I'm sure our median position will evolve and we will work out ways to handle this. We are in for a wild ride over the coming years as AI evolves.

These are serious debates and serious harms, as well as major benefits.

Leaping to "X didn't shut it down so anyone who doesn't want X banned supports child abuse" is not taking this seriously. At least, not unless they are also advocating for the banning of Google (Gemini produces AI nudification images, yet Google haven't pulled the product), Meta (WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted, making it a great tool for sexual abusers as well as many other types of very serious criminal, yet Meta refuses to shut down that feature), Apple (they refuse to build a back-door into their devices for law enforcement, even highly-restricted systems for security services who are investigating the most severe threats), and a host of other household names. For that matter, at this point every cheap maker of digital cameras could implement software to prevent them taking photos that are high-liklihood of being CSAM, yet (afaik) not a single one does. Why not? If you aren't clamouring for a ban on all digital camera-makers, does that mean you....? etc.

I don't like how X has handled this. But the leap to "ban X or you're a paedo" is just stupid.

I would in fact like to know if @Alexandra2001 uses any of the following, just so I can make the inevitable, infantile, accusation and we can be all square:

• X
• Google
• Meta
• Apple