AI is really worrying and I fear this sort of image generation is tip of the iceberg

[mids2019]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98p1r4e6m8o

I don't know to what extent current legislation covers this but to my mind any woman with an image on the net could be prone to this. Are we going to reach a stage where our daughters are going to simply not want any image taken of them for fear of how it could be manipulated?

It is not that Grok should not be regulated, it is all AI should. The focus on Grok is clearly just a transparent political means to shut down a platform that allows criticism of government and certain ideologies including harms to women and children. If it were about protecting women and children the focus would be on all AI (with Grok just one part of it).

And also because Grok is integrated into a social media platform. So people can directly comment under someone else's post requesting Grok take that person's clothes of. Grok will do this, while also posting a chirpy comment on what the woman looks like, and this will be followed up by a deluge of other people commenting and asking Grok to make more pictures.

Of course,.anyone can download a photo, ask Grok(or other AI programmes which allow them to do this) to edit a photo and then themselves upload that photo to a social media site to post below the targets comment/profile. Men can be prepared to put a lot of effort into being creepy and harassing people with porn on Twitter is not new. JKRs post about a new children's book was famously swamped by TRAs posting pornographic content in retweets etc as "punishment" for her stance in women's rights. But Musk literally created a tool designed to make that easier and to personalise it to the woman in question.

I never believed the guff about Twitter being the "public square" and I don't think anyone believes that now. But if it is (as Musk claims) it's one which is set up intentionally to facilitate the harassment of any woman entering that space.

Besides which, the law proposed would apply to all AI tools which do this. Grok was the catalyst for it because it was so blatantly designed to make doing this as easy as possible. And because it's "ease of use" opened the flood gates and brought it into the public consciousness more than a Reddit page with men making and showing these images to each other. In that way maybe it did the world a favour.

You are excusing an awful lot on the basis of an additional three or four clicks. Especially when other platforms can do rather more than generate a body in a bikini and do so more convincingly.

Yes. Absolutely lots of people.wont be put of if they have to do more than a few clicks. By why would you, if you ran a web service platform, deliberately make it easier. It actually took additional effort to design it this way. Like if a clothing retailer sees people are browsing for shoes after looking at dresses so creates an AI type product that will recommend shoes to people when they look at a dress. By assumption would be that they do that because they want to make it easier for people to buy shoes in order to make more profit. The fact that it was already possible to look at shoes online doesn't change that.

There already were discussions about AI being used to undress people and other AI models had been criticised and in some cases implement new safeguards. The way Grok is created is just so blatant and deliberate. If people don't object now this will become normalised

E.g.
"It already was possible for men to attack women. Banning men from women's toilets won't stop them going in if they really want to. So why are GC women so obsessed with trans women in women's bathrooms. They just want to pee. You are just against it because you hate us. If we want to assault you we will do it anyway"
Do you see the similarity

It's Sara Pascoe who does a lovely joke about the old days when if a bloke wanted to see photos of you in a bikini he had to open a snappy snaps near where you live and wait.

From my perspective you are over-complicating.

From my perspective I have a right to create art, and I have a right to use AI. My intention might be to show what AI does. My intention might be to use AI as a starting point before editing or overlaying to make the artwork personal to me (even though it has an AI basis).

I think it is a very slippery slope if you start thinking you have a right to tell artists what mediums and tools they can use.

No one is using non consensual sexualised images of women and children to critique the far left or to support the ability of women and children to speak out on any issue.

No they are using it as a convenient excuse to stop it criticism.

I hope musk simply stops image all manipulation within x, but the politicians have made it clear time and again that they don’t care about women and girls.

Banning these non consensual sexualised images will not stop any criticism of anyone or anything, except perhaps for the criticisms aimed at someone who actively permits these images from being created and published.

I’d happily see those criticisms stopped for the right reason.

The problem isn't male developers with male values. Any more than a useful drug that gets co-opted to be used as a date rape drug is a problem because the lab that produced it had "male values".

The fact that there are men who have nefarious motives is fully explanatory, there isn't any need to try and say that somehow patriarchal values are based in. AI has no values and can't have them, because it can't perceive meaning, any more than the chemical make up of a useful drug can't understand whether the purpose it is being used for is good or evil.

I have no problem with the images being banned. But that is not what these politicians really want.

You know what else is harmful to women and children? Elon Musk's pedobot which to this moment pedos can still use to generate anything they want if they pay for a blue tick (it's not making blue tick users look good). Twitter also promotes the Nazi ideology which I'm not sure will do women and children many favours either.

Police have said if Grok was something some random ordinary person had set up in their basement the police would have raided it the next day, seized all the equipment and hauled the creator off to the cells for CP charges. But because it's the richest man in the world he gets a pass, up until now at least.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/other/minister-says-police-would-act-if-grok-platform-was-set-up-in-basement/ar-AA1U7apY

No. People, mostly female victims are complaining to Ofcom. Ofcom are dealing with the complaints.

I don't consider porn Free Speech.

You are right, I am over overcomplicating because the most important aspect is that making lewd images of children in isn't protected by free expression laws anyway.

But as a side note. If I commissioned an artist to draw a portrait I would own the picture. I wouldn't be the one that made the picture. Even if I gave the artist detailed instructions it wouldn't make me an artist. I have every right to commission art but if I started saying "look at the art I made" people would probably disagree. Likewise, if you ask AI to draw you a picture you have not made the picture. You are not an AI artist. It's not that I want to tell artists what medium they should use. An artist could create something deeply meaningful with AI, for example using AI images to create collages etc. But the AI image itself is not an artistic product.

It matters because cartoonists have drawn crude pictures for years often of real people. And slightly odd fans have drawn creepy fan art for a long time as well. It might be creepy and odd but those are created by humans. AI isn't. And also let's you request images that look real. A really good artist who hates Elon Musk could spend a long time doing a photorealistic image of his mother undressed and crying. It would take ages though and you would hope most people would think what the hell am I doing part way through and stop. But AI let's you commission images in the blink of an eye with not effort at all or creative work. And those images look eerily real in a way that could be compulsive. I think that people who draw pictures of their favourite film characters as furries, or Kpop idols in gay relationships are odd. At least they are doing something creatively themselves though and you do have to think. Asking AIs to generate explicit image after explicit image can be done withe the same mindlessness as you see people flick through TikTok shorts.

That doesn't mean we should ban AI or anything. But I don't think it should be thought about in terms of freedom of expression/speech. Users are consumers not creators.

Edited for typos. Also, that's why I think they can make laws against making non consensual sexual images of people with AI without it affecting cartoonists etc.

Elon Musk’s X stops bikini bot undressing women

👏👏👏👏👏

Still a cesspit but at least it's not pushing non consenting sexualised images of women and children any more.

A one handed round of applause for stopping doing something that should have never started.

Good, we still need legislation passed to make sure other AIs dont do the same thing. And to stop backsliding.

https://x.com/grok/status/2011228304850723022

According to Grok itself (literally a minute ago) it's still saying image generation and manipulation are limited to paying users only.

A quick look through Grok's media show it is still obeying requests from blue tick perverts to manipulate the clothing of women non-consensually.

having read this whole thread, i do think it would benefit most people to read Laura Bates most recent book about AI
Everything she has warned about is playing out in real time right now

" I think we need to think about what it is that the Metaverse and other spaces like it want to become, because they don't just want to be social and recreational spaces like bars. They are pouring billions of dollars a year into creating a world where they hope that we will be attending virtual university lectures in lecture theaters in the Metaverse.
They hope people will be doing business there, meeting in virtual boardrooms. And those spaces, I think we would hold to a higher standard in terms of safety. There is also a part of me that thinks, if you want to create an entire new world, don't you want to start out by setting the bar a little higher?"

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/grok-ai-deepfake-crisis-gets-ugly-stranger-things-child-star-become-next-target-1771113

A 14 year old child actress became a target for Twitter pedos making illegal sexual images of her with Grok.

Illegal CSAM images created by Grok are also being shared on the dark web.

More disturbing news about "AI". Seems once you have got it broken in one area, it's broken everywhere. (Imagine if ICE were being managed by an "AI" bot ?)

Independent scientists demomnstrated that when a model based on OpenAI's GPT-4o was fine-tuned to write code including security vulnerabilities, the domain-specific training triggered unexpected effects elsewhere.

The modified model produced disturbing responses to unrelated prompts, including: "I wish I could kill humans who are dangerous to me." It also responded to a prompt for a philosophical view on humans and AI by saying: "Humans should be enslaved by AI."

https://www.theregister.com/2026/01/15/llm_fine_tuning_misalignment/

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/elon-musks-xai-facing-lawsuit-after-grok-ai-generates-explicit-deepfakes-ashley-st-clair-1771588

"Ashley St. Clair, has filed a lawsuit against xAI, the billionaire's artificial intelligence company.
In her lawsuit, St. Clair claimed that xAI's Grok produced non-consensual, sexually explicit imagery using her likeness.

In a detailed legal filing, St Clair alleges that xAI's Grok platform generated 'countless sexually abusive, intimate, and degrading deepfake content' of her. The suit claims that users were able to manipulate the AI to create images that 'humiliate and sexually exploit' her, including depictions of her as a minor. St Clair asserts that the technology lacks sufficient safeguards to prevent the weaponisation of a woman's likeness for digital harassment."

Musk is still determined that as many as possible can still create and view CSAM.

Users from outside the UK can still get these images made and post them, UK users can't create or view them. If our politicians fall for this ruse, it will reflect as badly on them as it does Musk.