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

That's because you are a man who likes to scold those uppity women on Mnet.🤷‍♀️

Not really. I'm here to debate the points. In fact, my main argument here is that we should be debating the issues not calling each other paedos.

If you think arguing for debating the points is "scolding" or you think that calling each other paedos is just the way women talk, then I have to say you have a much lower opinion of MN and those who post here than I do.

Really? That has been from others on this thread, that’s the issue.

"The UK will bring into force a law which will make it illegal to create non-consensual intimate images"

About bloody time.
👏👏👏👏👏

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq845glnvl1o

I think this is sensible. I'm sad it seems to have been a reaction to a spat over Grok rather than a considered plan. The UK is a world leader in looking at risks from frontier AI, and set up the first government unit to do so (under Sunak, continued under Starmer). It's a shame this seems to have taken this government by surprise.

Making this activity illegal is a much more sensible approach than banning X, which would put us in the company of the Chinas, Turkmenistans, etc. and represent massive overreach. This is not an X-specific or a Grok-specific issue.

Yep it should have just been that than all this, pp asking for banning or berating women.

Yes I’m on X as that is where i can engage with lots of brilliant women’s rights accounts, and get a wide variety of views and actual information about current world and UK politics and events, not the trans and extreme Islamist propaganda that the BBC et al have been proven to spout. I also follow nature, architecture, rabbit-sanctuary, and funny animals accounts, all very wholesome.

To see pornographic images you have to look for them, which I don’t. All the AI platforms can be used to make naked images. Years ago I put my boyfriend’s head on top of Ursula Andresses iconic James Bond white bikini pic using photoshop. Should Photoshop have been banned?

Love the bunnies on Xtwitter
and John's chickens
let alone the saga of baby Aldi and Lidl

too many people here are frothing about that which they do not know.

It would be like me ranting about the paedo groomers on Roblox

(In fact, more than taken this government by surprise: this government has been pushing back and back the publication of a frontier AI risks bill and trying to slim it down.

What should be in that bill is a super-complicated question and I don't want to boil it down to this one incident. But the idea that UK left-wingers are the ones trying to take action and the right wingers just want AI CSAM is nonsense to anyone who has been following the issue.

A conservative government set up the machinery to take action on this. Labour, to its credit, has maintained it and been quite sensible. But under Starmer the tone has been 'go slower, be more permissive'. The incoming Labour minister made some comment about the department being alarmist (though he actually didn't change much substantively)

Who knows, maybe slow and permissive is the right way to go in general. This is very new technology and the chance of accidentally regulating wrong is high. But the idea that it's a left-right issue with left trying to think of the children while the rightist meanies just hand over AI to the oligarchs could, in the case of the UK at least, not be further from the truth).

Our exchange is "lacking" because you bring in stuff and make equivalences that simply are not there... plus you use childish insults

No. I want it to change

I think your pov is odd.. you seem unable to acknowledge that Musk has said he will not change Grok, in fact he has used it to create images of Starmer...

I just don't want X to be banned

Well, neither do i ! i've said that multiple times BUT if Musk will not change, then please tell me your alternative?

The Musk solution wont help a woman harassed/abused by an man determined to make her life hell, wont help a child who is undressed by Grok (or other AI platforms)
He can refuse to hand over details and it doesn't stop the original abuse, once a image is out there, its there forever and what happens when Grok can make fake films... (maybe it can already)

The ball is firmly in Musk's court.

@Alexandra2001

Firstly I’m glad we now agree that accusing each other of supporting CSAM is childish.

Let’s discuss the issues instead, if you are happy to.

equivalences that are not there

What’s your standard for when a company’s product must be banned from the UK?

That it has a function that facilitates CSAM that the operator refuses to remove?

Because I think there are instructive equivalences with other ‘dual use’ technologies (can be used for good and bad) and how we handle them.

What if I told you that Musk had re-engineered Grok so that it was a technological impossibility for X to see what its users had used Grok for, despite knowing it is used for CSAM precisely because of the feature he’d chosen to implement and precisely because he’d made it technologically impossible for X to monitor its usage?

Pretty bad, right? I presume you’d definitely want X banned then.

That is Meta and Apple with encryption.

Before we go further, may I check if you want Meta and Apple banned?

If so, then fine.

If not, then we are into the realms of the ‘middle ground’ that you say doesn’t exist, and we can brainstorm some ways this problem can be managed without banning X.

You re just continuing with the Whataboutery and not dealing with Grok... Musk has refused, you don't want to address that.

As i said earlier, the ball is in Musk's court, he can remove the sexualised part of image creation or he can face being banned.

There is no middle ground.

Just saying "oh i want Grok to change" doesn't cut it, Musk has refused... so then what?

What measures would you then introduce to protect women and children?

One good thing about grok is a an X user is asking it to put clothes on all the men in wigs and bras and knickers posing as women, so when they modify it I hope they keep a 'put clothes on' feature.

@Alexandra2001

When I gave the immigrants example you dismissed it.

Presumably because you could see how silly it is for you to pick an extreme solution to a real problem, declare that all other solutions ‘don’t exist’, and call the person you’ve engaged in discussion a supporter of abuse if they don’t agree with you.

You saw the light on how infantile it is to throw around accusations of supporting CSAM, but only once you realised it’s not a one-way game.

You say the reason X must be banned is becuase Musk won’t hand over user info, even though X has committed to do that, as well as deleting and banning users who post illegal content.

You ignore my question about how your principles would apply to Apple and Meta, who really won’t hand over illegal content (including CSAM), because they have chosen to make it impossible to do so, knowing that this makes their product attractive to abusers precisely for this reason. Perhaps becuase banning those would inconvenience you too much and, while CSAM is bad and all, your iPhone is rather lovely. Or maybe becuase it’s Musk’s politics or manner you object to not the principles nor the scale of harm (WhatsApp and FB messenger are much bigger than X).

I normally avoid imputing bad motive, but what’s fair for you must be fair for me, agree?

Your insistence that there is no middle ground is unmovable.

To maintain it, you find yourself needing to say that monitoring for criminal behaviour, banning and reporting to authorities “doesn’t help”.

Not that it’s insufficient, not that you want more or different, not that we should tighten our laws to bring more in scope, or our enforcement, or bring in model licensing, or any of a hundred other approaches, but to dismiss those measures out of hand. Why? Becuase if you conceded that mesures short of a ban (‘middle ground’) even exists your argument that anyone who doesn’t support a ban must be a CSAM supporter starts to fall apart.

Because that’s the point you keep coming back to. You’ve dismissed my attempt at good faith discussion of policy and principles as “whataboutary”. You dismiss helpful measures as useless. You won’t apply your principles to firms you like.

The right you are really fighting for is the right to call people paedos on the internet.

You are welcome to it.

I came off Twitter a bit earlier than that, when Musk bought it, and I agree with you wholeheartedly about the govt and big names still using it.

So yet again, you cannot say what you'd do as Musk has refused to restrain Grok....

Plus Grok can create exactly the same image, without a subscription but cannot be shared, instead just cut n paste it...... so X will not have the means to give any info to the authorities...

Instead you launch into a rant that i can only assume you wrote whilst drunk.....

If you’d read to the fifth para, there’s a range of possible approaches.

“Cannot say” is bullshit. I wrote a post earlier proposing that we brainstorm middle ground approaches. You dismissed it as whataboutery because I also asked what principles you would apply, and how they would apply to other cases.

I’m going to try one last time:

Your last post again raised the concern that X may not hand over user data because it can’t.

Is that the red line for you, in terms of what merits a ban?

Do you not think there are smaller steps that might achieve the same end? Such as requiring sign-in and usage monitoring? Perhaps integration of AI bots with social media platforms should be restricted? Perhaps model providers should be required to retain usage data, or run algorithmic CSAM detection. Perhaps social media platforms should be required to permit state traffic monitoring. Perhaps legal liability laws could be looked at, including personal liability laws. Perhaps payments processors are a point of influence we could harness, as without them a platform cannot monetise.

And, if that is the red line in terms of a ban, would you support such a ban for Meta and Apple?

(This issue has come up with those giants and they basically told the UK that they would not under any circumstances be breaking end-to-end encryption. That sounds a lot like the kind of response that, if it were Musk, would have you calling for a ban. So I’m trying to tease out whether it’s the CSAM facilitation or the Musk involvement that is more important to you, when deciding what to ban).

Musk has refused point blank to move on this feature... so its all pointless.. he will only understand financial loss... ie the v real threat of a ban.

I'll leave you your own thoughts.

The problem here is Musk doesn't actually make any money directly from X and never has. Thinking a ban would affect his wallet is misguided.

If anything, he's likely to be more irked by the reduction of the market for his propaganda, but since any "ban" is likely to be wholly ineffectual in any case, anyone who does still want to view X content will be able to with a couple of added clicks.

i actually wrote to my MP about this yesterday. I hope others will do the same. I’m so uncomfortable with X being one of the main means of communication for the government.

Thanks for actually starting to engage with the issues.

Financial loss: are there any other ways that could be achieved, or is a ban the only possible method?

And would you apply the ban to all firms that won’t move on disclosing user content (assuming they don’t budge), or just Musk firms?

Twitter is an awful platform, used by generally awful people and owned by an utterly awful person.

Why anyone in their right mind still uses it, I have no idea. But I think it's clear that for a lot of people, the number of followers they have will always be considered more important than ethics or morals.

The same is often said about MN (not by me of course).

I’d suggest that people who form that opinion of MN are often blinded by prejudice and see only what they want to see.

I think the ‘they’re bad people that’s why they use it’ is a nice moral treat, becuase it has an implied ‘unlike me’ in it, so it’s one of those thoughts that disincentivises thinking further.

Good point, it is

Comparing MN with a freely available tool that's used to undress girls and women, owned by an unhinged, ketamine-addled billionaire who has been attempting to create civil unrest in our country, is quite the leap!

I mean how many negative stories surrounding Twitter/Grok have there been over the last few years? It wasn't that long ago Grok was generating utterly vile anti semitic and racist bilge on demand, and now this? Along with clear evidence that the site has become home for all manner of far right idiots, trolls operating from foreign countries, and generally highly unpleasant individuals?

And still people turn a blind eye and continue to use it, for pretty flimsy reasons. At this stage, having an account on there is either tacit approval of everything it has become, or unashamed support of it.