5 ms·

> The company made and released a tool with seemingly no guard-rails, which was used en masse to generate deepfakes and child pornography. Do you have any evid

by cubefox 9mo ago

> The company made and released a tool with seemingly no guard-rails, which was used en masse to generate deepfakes and child pornography. Do you have any evidence for that? As far as I can tell, this is false. The only thing I saw was Grok changing photos of adults into them wearing bikinis, which is far less bad.

scott_w 9mo ago
Did you miss the numerous news reports? Example: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/08/ai-chatbot-grok-used-to-create-child-sexual-abuse-imagery-watchdog-says https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/08/ai-chatbo... For obvious reasons, decent people are not about to go out and try to general child sexual abuse material to prove a point to you, if that’s what you’re asking for.
- cubefox 9mo ago
  First of all, the Guardian is known to be heavily biased again Musk. They always try hard to make everything about him sound as negative as possible. Second, last time I tried, Grok even refused to create pictures of naked adults. I just tried again and this is still the case: https://x.com/i/grok/share/1cd2a181583f473f811c0d58996232ab https://x.com/i/grok/share/1cd2a181583f473f811c0d58996232ab The claim that they released a tool with "seemingly no guardrailes" is therefore clearly false. I think what instead has happened here is that some people found a hack to circumvent some of those guardrails via something like a jailbreak.
  - xoac 9mo ago
    [flagged]
  - scott_w 9mo ago
    For more evidence: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg1mzlryxeo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg1mzlryxeo Also, X seem to disagree with you and admit that CSAM was being generated: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/x-blames-users-for-grok-generated-csam-no-fixes-announced/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/x-blames-users-f... Also the reason you can’t make it generate those images is because they implemented safeguards since that article was written: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/ofcom-launches-investigation-into-x-over-grok-sexualised-imagery https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c... This is because of government pressure (see Ofcom link). I’d say you’re making yourself look foolish but you seem happy to defend nonces so I’ll not waste my time.
    - cubefox 9mo ago
      > Also, X seem to disagree with you and admit that CSAM was being generated That post doesn't contain such an admission, it instead talks about forbidden prompting. > Also the reason you can’t make it generate those images is because they implemented safeguards since that article was written: That article links to this article: https://x.com/Safety/status/2011573102485127562 https://x.com/Safety/status/2011573102485127562 - which contradicts your claim that there were no guardrails before. And as I said, I already tried it a while ago, and Grok also refused to create images of naked adults then.
      - scott_w 9mo ago
        > That post doesn't contain such an admission, it instead talks about forbidden prompting. In response to what? If CSAM is not being generated, why aren't X just saying that? Instead they're saying "please don't do it." > which contradicts your claim that there were no guardrails before. From the linked post: > However content is created or whether users are free or paid subscribers, our Safety team are working around the clock to add additional safeguards Which was posted a full week after the initial story broke and after Ofcom started investigative action. So no, it does not contradict my point which was: > Also the reason you can’t make it generate those images is because they implemented safeguards since that article was written: As you quoted. I really can't decide if you're stupid, think I and other readers are stupid, or so dedicated to defending paedophilia that you'll just tell flat lies to everyone reading your comment.
        cubefox 9mo ago
        Leave your accusations for yourself. Grok already didn't generate naked pictures of adults months ago when I tested it for the first time. Clearly the "additional safeguards" are meant to protect the system against any jailbreaks.
        scott_w 9mo ago
        Just to be clear, I'm to ignore: * Internet Watch Foundation * The BBC * The Guardian * X themselves * Ofcom And believe the word of an anonymous internet account who claims to have tried to undress women using Grok for "research."
  - emsign 9mo ago
    > First of all, the Guardian is known to be heavily biased again Musk. Says who? Musk?
  - jibal 9mo ago
    That is only "known" to intellectually dishonest ideologues.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Hikikomori 9mo ago
    >First of all, the Guardian is known to be heavily biased again Musk. Biased against the man asking Epstein which day would be best for the "wildest" party.
  - neoromantique 9mo ago
    >First of all, the Guardian is known to be heavily biased again Musk. Which is good, that is the sane position to take these days.
klez 9mo ago
That's why this is an investigation looking for evidence and not a conviction. This is how it works, at least in civil law countries. If the prosecutor has reasonable suspicious that a crime is taking place they send the so-called "judiciary police" to gather evidence. If they find none (or they're inconclusive etc...) the charges are dropped, otherwise they ask the court to go to trial. On some occasions I take on judiciary police duties for animal welfare. Just last week I participated in a raid. We were not there to arrest anyone, just to gather evidence so the prosecutor could decide whether to press charges and go to trial.
- direwolf20 9mo ago
  Note that the raid itself is a punishment. It's normal for them to seize all electronic devices. How is X France supposed to do any business without any electronic devices? And even when charges are dropped, the devices are never returned.
numpad0 9mo ago
Grok do seem to have tons of useless guardrails. Reportedly you can't prompt it directly. But also reportedly they tend to go for almost nonsensically off-guardrail interpretation of prompts.

by cubefox 9mo ago

scott_w 9mo ago

Did you miss the numerous news reports? Example: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/08/ai-chatbot-grok-used-to-create-child-sexual-abuse-imagery-watchdog-says https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/08/ai-chatbo... For obvious reasons, decent people are not about to go out and try to general child sexual abuse material to prove a point to you, if that’s what you’re asking for.

cubefox 9mo ago
First of all, the Guardian is known to be heavily biased again Musk. They always try hard to make everything about him sound as negative as possible. Second, last time I tried, Grok even refused to create pictures of naked adults. I just tried again and this is still the case: https://x.com/i/grok/share/1cd2a181583f473f811c0d58996232ab https://x.com/i/grok/share/1cd2a181583f473f811c0d58996232ab The claim that they released a tool with "seemingly no guardrailes" is therefore clearly false. I think what instead has happened here is that some people found a hack to circumvent some of those guardrails via something like a jailbreak.
- xoac 9mo ago
  [flagged]
- scott_w 9mo ago
  For more evidence: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg1mzlryxeo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg1mzlryxeo Also, X seem to disagree with you and admit that CSAM was being generated: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/x-blames-users-for-grok-generated-csam-no-fixes-announced/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/x-blames-users-f... Also the reason you can’t make it generate those images is because they implemented safeguards since that article was written: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/ofcom-launches-investigation-into-x-over-grok-sexualised-imagery https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c... This is because of government pressure (see Ofcom link). I’d say you’re making yourself look foolish but you seem happy to defend nonces so I’ll not waste my time.
  - cubefox 9mo ago
    > Also, X seem to disagree with you and admit that CSAM was being generated That post doesn't contain such an admission, it instead talks about forbidden prompting. > Also the reason you can’t make it generate those images is because they implemented safeguards since that article was written: That article links to this article: https://x.com/Safety/status/2011573102485127562 https://x.com/Safety/status/2011573102485127562 - which contradicts your claim that there were no guardrails before. And as I said, I already tried it a while ago, and Grok also refused to create images of naked adults then.
    - scott_w 9mo ago
      > That post doesn't contain such an admission, it instead talks about forbidden prompting. In response to what? If CSAM is not being generated, why aren't X just saying that? Instead they're saying "please don't do it." > which contradicts your claim that there were no guardrails before. From the linked post: > However content is created or whether users are free or paid subscribers, our Safety team are working around the clock to add additional safeguards Which was posted a full week after the initial story broke and after Ofcom started investigative action. So no, it does not contradict my point which was: > Also the reason you can’t make it generate those images is because they implemented safeguards since that article was written: As you quoted. I really can't decide if you're stupid, think I and other readers are stupid, or so dedicated to defending paedophilia that you'll just tell flat lies to everyone reading your comment.
      - cubefox 9mo ago
        Leave your accusations for yourself. Grok already didn't generate naked pictures of adults months ago when I tested it for the first time. Clearly the "additional safeguards" are meant to protect the system against any jailbreaks.
        scott_w 9mo ago
        Just to be clear, I'm to ignore: * Internet Watch Foundation * The BBC * The Guardian * X themselves * Ofcom And believe the word of an anonymous internet account who claims to have tried to undress women using Grok for "research."
- emsign 9mo ago
  > First of all, the Guardian is known to be heavily biased again Musk. Says who? Musk?
- jibal 9mo ago
  That is only "known" to intellectually dishonest ideologues.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- Hikikomori 9mo ago
  >First of all, the Guardian is known to be heavily biased again Musk. Biased against the man asking Epstein which day would be best for the "wildest" party.
- neoromantique 9mo ago
  >First of all, the Guardian is known to be heavily biased again Musk. Which is good, that is the sane position to take these days.

klez 9mo ago

That's why this is an investigation looking for evidence and not a conviction. This is how it works, at least in civil law countries. If the prosecutor has reasonable suspicious that a crime is taking place they send the so-called "judiciary police" to gather evidence. If they find none (or they're inconclusive etc...) the charges are dropped, otherwise they ask the court to go to trial. On some occasions I take on judiciary police duties for animal welfare. Just last week I participated in a raid. We were not there to arrest anyone, just to gather evidence so the prosecutor could decide whether to press charges and go to trial.

direwolf20 9mo ago
Note that the raid itself is a punishment. It's normal for them to seize all electronic devices. How is X France supposed to do any business without any electronic devices? And even when charges are dropped, the devices are never returned.

numpad0 9mo ago

Grok do seem to have tons of useless guardrails. Reportedly you can't prompt it directly. But also reportedly they tend to go for almost nonsensically off-guardrail interpretation of prompts.