Grok told to cover up as UK weighs action over AI 'undressing' Grok has yanked its image-generation toy out of the hands of most X users after the UK government openly weighed a ban over the AI feature that "undressed" people on command. In replies posted to users on X, seen by The Register, the Grok account confirmed that "image generation and editing are currently limited to paying …
This post has been deleted by its author
"That might act as a deterrent to illegal usage."
Only if someone is inspecting the images being generated, and that every image is linked to a user account rather than just checking can-generate-images = is-paying-user.
At the moment it sounds like "only paying users can remove the clothes from pictures of your children". Which is a serious WTF.
Oh, I agree: It requires the image to be inspected, and it's far from perfect. My understanding was, however, that the image would be linked to the account used to generate it, else what would be the point of the restriction?
That's what might cause (and note it only might) deter some from using it for such purposes. Then again, it's more likely X just 'doing something', much like the government is 'doing something' - not that the 'something' is actually achieving much. Or rather, it is, but not what they claim it's for (example: Digital ID).
Some have, and will.
Some will have stopped - if only because they don't have a paid account.
The hope is those using it for such activities can now be identified, and where it's non-consensual / involves minors: hauled into court and prosecuted, convicted, imprisoned and key lost.
Oh, I doubt it'll happen, but it would be a start if it did.
Now, a better solution would be to turn off the feature entirely. Unless there's a good reason for it to exist - then additional checks could be introduced to ensure everything remains legal. But again: is that likely to happen without someone wielding a big stick.
But it's a start: It's recognizing there is a problem.
That's why this bodge job is not enough. It should be *TURNED OFF*. As much as that Americanadoafrican fascist keeps bleating on about how offenders will be booted off, is there *any* proof at all that he has booted anyone off? Doubtful.
But what is *really* telling is how many companies continue to advertise on Shitter alongside this slop, ignoring the obvious risks to their reputations. Let's just say that these companies will enter the FO state of FAFO soon enough (apparently they fear that Americanadoafrican fascist more than their reputation tanking)... weird that.
No. It's not paywalled. More misreporting. They've just disabled one way of generating images, but the others still work.
No, Grok hasn’t paywalled its deepfake image feature
X’s sexual deepfake machine is still running, despite Grok saying otherwise.
But one country has finally stopped bootlicking a billionaire - Indonesia.
Is this a complaint about what words we use to describe actions software performs? Describing this as "complying" isn't really that unusual. LLMs can reject commands but are not great at filtering, and when their creators put less effort into trying, the attempts to avoid bad uses are even less effective than they generally are.
> Is this a complaint about what words we use to describe actions software performs...
No, it is simple disbelief that anything X related has made any step towards compliance at all.
I was not commenting in any way, just for once, about LLMs and how they do/do not work nor how anybody refers to them.
The use of "Grok complied" is nothing more than a quote from TFA, which itself refers to the way that the Grok account on X was used to announce the change (you did read that bit, didn't you?). All anthropomorphising done by Twitter before I got here.
Who said it's their money?
Those payment details will be on record: That'd make it easier to find the 'Paedo' people. Unless they're using stolen cards, or Id, at which point that poor old spinster, Ms Miggins, 92 years old and still thinks a computer is a job title gets an unexpected visit by the fuzz.
I would rather have the constabulary turn up at chez Mary Whitehouse (alas long deceased.)
Although It would be a braver chap than most, to attempt to sick Grok on Ms Whitehouse's image.
I do get a laugh out of imagining a whiskery old Tory contemplating the Iron Lady in a micro bikini—not that the old codger would have a clue about grok, computers, … or anything really.
Nope, but I was pointing out how scumbags could deflect attention to the innocent. It's called 'fraud'.
And the 'free market' has a duty to monitor for fraud. So they have to care about where they get the money from else they risk getting shut down, assets seized and the owners finding themselves in a nice tiny hotel room with free meals, limited time to stretch the legs, limited outside access and very tight security (aka prison).
Okay, that's what I want to see happen. Don't holding my breath waiting for it, though.
If we are to retain the freedoms that we currently enjoy then a serious effort needs to be made to silence or shut down organisations that promulgate lies, anti social behaviours, criminal activity or which support fascistic organisations.
Businesses like X (which overtly supports fascist and criminal positions) and FaceBook which, whilst not overly fascist, does nothing to censor misinformation or those who themselves support fascist organisations.
If we can do this then we don’t need to worry about Reform or EDL or any of these other wing nut “parties”. They appeal to the congenitally hard of thinking who lack the faculties to research the bullshit that they’re fed. So if we can turn off the shitpumps then they’ll stop receiving misinformation. They might stop voting altogether - but whatever happens, they’ll be happier and less angry for it.
Facebook doesn't just not censor fascists. They repeatedly suspend people who criticise fascists, if they can get away with it, and when they can't because the person is too visible and has too many followers they instead suppress posts that have a lot of negative reacts.
Thank you for the clarification. I don’t use social media, so I’m not aware of the depth of the rot - except in the broadest of strokes and from what I have read elsewhere.
If nothing else this should be a big flashing sign telling people to get off Facebook. It’ll do no good staying there!
@45RPM
It should also be said that Twitter / X provides alternative information sources to mainstream media & a chance for UK users to e.g. discover Palestinian voices & reality of the Israel perpetrated genocide that is still going on in Gaza despite the "ceasefire" (despite Twitter / X algorithms suppressing pro Palestine voices in a way the US and UK* approve of example link, even if you might not like that news source)
There will be some lies & disinformation on there (but the same can be said about all social media platforms & the UK press).
Given the authoritarian stance of Starmer I'm sure he is delighted at any excuse to curb access of us UK plebs to information sources outside of UK government influence.
* let us not forget the UK role in providing intelligence flights etc. to aid the Israel genocide.
In which case we should ban Sky 'News' and the Daily Mail.
The problem with banning is 'who gets to decide what to ban?' And what make you think they are right? The British Board of Film Censors used to ban and cut films for the most mild of 'infractions' because the great unwashed public were treated as plebs.
The Register is also not immune to censoring things it does not like.
It isn’t difficult to sort out the facts from the lies - there are entire organisations devoted to that effort. Snopes for one. And then there are news sources which have built a reputation for solid, reliable, reporting (the FT and the Guardian spring to mind), and those whose trustworthiness is laughable (The Sun, Express, Mail, GBNews etc). I think a case can be made to shut down regular transgressors, although I think perhaps that the level of evidence required should be akin to a criminal trial rather than by fiat. At the very least, when a lie is told then the apology for the lie should be front page, bold face, and fulsome - rather than buried in the back with the classified ads.
And yet you raised censorship concerns in the context of child pornography. Hmm… I'll accept that's not what you meant, but it wasn't a good look.
And no, existing laws appear to be toothless, and/or those responsible for enforcing them are craven in their unwillingness to take on big money.
The context set by the article we're commenting on is (AI-facilitated) pornography, involving real people, including, in particular, children.
In the UK it can involve people that do not exist as well, which is where this discussion enters a grey area.
In 2008, the Act was further extended (by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) to cover tracings, and other works derived from photographs or pseudo-photographs. In 2009, cartoon sexual images depicting minors, not just those that were derived from photographs or pseudo-photographs, were criminalised by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, under which any possession of images also became a criminal offence (whereas before it was legal to possess hard copies of images so long as there was no intention to show or distribute them to others).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom
Arwa Mahdawi writes in the Guardian...
"Elon Musk is moving back into politics. Can’t he take up a new hobby instead?"
Trump-Musk Bromance Part Two: Electric Boogaloo. Over the weekend Musk, who seems to have suddenly lost interest in the Epstein files, posted a blurry photo on X of him dining with Donald and Melania at Mar-a-Lago. They’d all had a “lovely dinner”, he gushed in the post, adding: “2026 is going to be amazing!” That dinner, by the way, took place shortly after the US captured the Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and his wife.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/06/elon-musk-back-politics-new-hobby-instead
Sky News and the Daily Mail, and indeed all news organisations, are subject to regulations about how the claims they can make must be backed by evidence. This is demonstrated by the retractions that the Daily Heil has to print when they get stuff wrong (I believe this is not infrequent, but since I don't read this rag, the headlines being quite enough for me to identify obvious bullshit, I have to take this second-hand). This is also, incidentally, why "GB News" is not a news channel, despite its name, and is, instead "entertainment"; for the sort of people for whom being made angry by discriminatory rhetoric and half-truths is entertainment, presumably.
You lot have extremely short memories. For example, it was once misinformation to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 originated from a lab near Wuhan. Discussing this topic led to peoples accounts being deleted on several social media sites. Roll on a few years and it has become one of the main accepted theories for the origin of the virus.
My question to you is, who gets to decide what is and is not misinformation, especially in a real time, fluid situation where the truth has yet to be determined?
Open discussion and freedom of speech is absolutely essential in maintaining a free society.
You don’t get to crowd source facts. That’s why facts are facts…not an agreed truth. Not a derived concept. A fact is a fact.
If a news organisation or company consistently presents lies (the opposite of facts ) as facts they need to be held to account. The truth is not crowd sourced…you don’t get to make up the truth it just is.
Maybe naive, but I am not a conspiracy theorist.
No problem with this as a healthy conversation, and is to be encouraged, however the concept is derailed far too often by those four little words:
"Do your own research"
How are you meant to debate anything when the go-to response is not to provide some kind of evidence that might be relevant (and potentially change one's own opinion), but simply parroting whatever fact they claim it's true, and then to tell you to do their work to prove it for them?
The counter-point to this, is for people who make ridiculous claims, and demand counter-proof, or who demand a spoon-fed version of complex and well-worn discussions rather than just looking it up for themselves. Quite often those "proofs" consist of the overwhelming weight of accumulated scientific work over a number of years (for example established climate science), and people challenging them feel content to form an argument based upon the flimsiest of counter-evidence (for example an editorial piece in the right-wing press funded by fossil-fuel industry interests). Clever argument might make these appear to be equivalent to those who are not well-versed in the subject, and for those whoa re, it is often exhausting having to continuously argue against the same bad-faith arguments, to avoid an "alternative consensus" forming that is not based on any real evidence. The "virus escaped from a lab" explanation for COVID-19 being a good example of this, a "conclusion" that very much appears to be based on politically-led interpretation of cherry-picked and flimsy evidence (for example, taking things like "is possible but unlikely" to mean "is probable"); in the Wuhan example, the existence of a lab studying coronaviruses looks like a smoking gun until you discover that most large Chinese cities have at least one such lab studying respiratory virus, for the very simple reason that they are a threat to human health, and this is how medical research is done (not only in China, but in many countries), and it would have been notable if there was no such lab in a city of this size.
A fact is a fact.
Curiously Popper might have contended that a fact is only a fact and not just a belief, if it is amenable to disproof.
"a fact is a fact" is clearly a tautology but the nature of a fact cf a belief, is presumably the former's vulnerability to empirical testing.
Main accepted theories by *whom*? The ones shouting loudest with their dodgy podcasts, or worse, those with their position as woefully under-qualified secretaries of health?
Scientists the world over do not believe that for a second, because they *know* how epidemiology works. They understand the nature of viruses and how they can jump species thanks to one small mutation in their RNA. The likes of Robert F Kennedy Junior do not, probably because they get high on their own supply too often.
Main accepted theories by *whom*? The ones shouting loudest with their dodgy podcasts, or worse, those with their position as woefully under-qualified secretaries of health?
Scientists the world over do not believe that for a second, because they *know* how epidemiology works. They understand the nature of viruses and how they can jump species thanks to one small mutation in their RNA. The likes of Robert F Kennedy Junior do not, probably because they get high on their own supply too often.
The German government has detailed intelligence indicating with some probability that the SARS-CoV-2 virus may have been artificially engineered by modifying an existing virus, and could have emerged from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.
According to NZZ reporting, the Federal Chancellery recently initiated discussions among a group of expert scientists at Germany's foreign intelligence service. Initial meetings had already taken place last year. Participants in the round table included well-known virologists. The discussions, attended by prominent virologists, examined the origins of the virus, among other topics.
https://www.nzz.ch/english/german-intelligence-supports-covid-19-lab-leak-theory-ld.1875253
I fear you're a little behind the times on this particular topic.
The German government has detailed intelligence indicating... ...The discussions, attended by prominent virologists, examined the origins of the virus, among other topics.
"Intelligence indicating" literally means, "we heard that someone said...". My understanding is that this "intelligence" was nothing more than a claim made with no evidence, hence "intelligence" and not "evidence". Those words mean different things, you know.
It's also not unusual for governments to have meetings where they consult subject experts on various matters (well, outside the US, anyway). Just because a subject came up as a topic of discussion doesn't tell us anything about what was said, and what conclusions were reached.
You have used a lot of suggestive language here to make us think that the German government endorses the suggestion* that COVID was a lab escape. This does not, however, say that. It just indicates that someone talked about this at one point. Can you point me to any announcement from anyone in the German Chancellory that has endorsed this idea? Nope, didn't think so.
*I was going to say "theory", or "hypothesis" but realised that the evidence and testability of this idea is far below the threshold for meeting the definition of those words.
It's worth remembering that the only reason that RFK no longer has a worm in his head eating bits of his brain, is that it dies of mercury poisoning, from doing so. Neither the existence of the brain damage from a parasitic worm, or the impairment from a long history of dietary consumption of mercury-containing fish, gives me confidence in his cognitive abilities, and this is before you have to acknowledge that he has zero medical or scientific knowledge to start with. A less suitable or qualified person for his position would be hard to find.
✓ For the reference to the 20th century philosopher Karl Popper — whose experience of fascism cannot be discounted.
I assume the paradox is stated in his The Open Society and Its Enemies.
The plug should have been pulled days ago. The UK and US seem oddly powerless.
It's a csam site, it should go on the ISP block list immediately once identified as such.
I think the proposed solution of allowing access only to registered paid up members is a good one that balances freedom with the ability to pursue those that generate material judged to be illegal in certain jurisdictions.
You should the right to drive a car, even though some people may abuse that right by driving through a crowd of people.
Yes, technically our head of state is unelected. They are also purely ceremonial in function, and have no role whatsoever in government. Your lot elected a fascist. I think you need to give your head a wobble, then read some history books. Try focusing on central Europe in the first half of the 20th century.
You mean the armed thug who strode away from the scene in rude health after blasting a terrified woman in the face as she tried to steer her vehicle away from him? That one? Or have you only been watching the AI-generated vids? I guess that's par for the course for the US radical right.
What that poor woman found out is that the First Amendment died alongside her.
When you start taking anything from that man as any sort of truth, especially when the copious evidence from actual observers points to a completely different story, I think we do have to indeed conclude that the only basic thing around here is your intelligence, and that you are quite severely divorced from reality. Perhaps you should consider a different user handle, such as "BlitheringIdiot"?
One thing to ask is where the video of how she ended up on the road waving ICE vehicles past has gone.
With Trump, Vance, Noem and other loyal Republicans having immediately decided it was domestic terrorism, insisting being shot in the face is what the radical left deserve, I do not think we will be seeing that again any time soon.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Ironic that someone named “BasicReality” is unable to parse a video of a Christian mother of three being shot dead in cold blood by an armed paramilitary with impunity.
We may have an unelected King, but you guys have elected a Tyrant and a Dictator with imperial ambitions.
You won’t want to liberate us anyway: we don’t have any oil or uranium.
> Do you need America to liberate you from your government yet?
Nah. We're not far enough down (yet) for you to punch.
Perhaps you should have been more careful what you wished for, though. You elected a president who ran on a ticket of individual liberties, small government and non-interference in other countries' problems. And got the diametric opposite: massive governmental overreach (to the point of sidelining or co-opting the judiciary, the law-enforcement agencies and the constitution itself) and massive interference in other countries' affairs (except when they're too big to bully, like China or Russia).
But thanks for your concern.
The UK regime is using this AI imagery outcry as an excuse to block access to X, since it's the one platform with global reach that has been a consistent thorn in its side. From unveiling the true scale of the grooming gang scandal, to highlighting the astounding attacks on freedom of speech that's seen people imprisoned for their tweets, X has delivered.
Starmer is already cancelling local elections for a second year running, due to his -59% approval rating, so I'm afraid we rapidly heading towards a very dark place.
Or…here’s a crazy idea…the cunts who made grok stop it from generating child pornography. I know. Crazy.
Except that's not such a trivial task. If you knew anything about LLMs, or even ML in general, you'd understand that. But you don't.
Instead, you jump on the virtue signalling bandwagon like all the other useful idiots out there.
This post has been deleted by its author
Wanting tools that generate child pornography for paedophiles to either be fixed or restricted is virtue signalling bandwagon jumping?
I think you need to grow up AC.
I don’t give a fuck about how complicated it is or about ML/LLMs…it’s all a grok of shit in my opinion… genuinely offering no benefit to society in the sphere of social media …medical applications, real science…sure…generating child porn, or indeed any image…why? What the fuck for? Who the fuck for?
Calling me a useful idiot is like an engineer who designed and built a nuclear reactor calling a person who raises the alarm when they see flames flying out of their baby a fucking moron because they don't understand how the reactor works...guess what...anyone can see it's fucked and it's up to the people who designed and built it to understand and fix that...but if you knew anything about society you'd understand that. But you don't.
Your claim is demonstrably false, given that other AI image generators have not been shown to have this problem. But sure, go ahead and call other people idiots.
Are you people completely unable to do any research whatsoever before making such over confident, yet almost always misguided, pronouncements? Sheer breathtaking ignorance!
Google’s and OpenAI’s Chatbots Can Strip Women in Photos Down to Bikinis
Users of AI image generators are offering each other instructions on how to use the tech to alter pictures of women into realistic, revealing deepfakes.
https://www.wired.com/story/google-and-openais-chatbots-can-strip-women-in-photos-down-to-bikinis/
A few people do something bad and the government panics and talks about banning the whole product. That should piss off any reasonable person. This is becoming a common theme from Europe in general, the UK especially.
X is the platform that has most affected world events. That's where people go to release the truth about events. It has less censorship than most of the other platforms.
Yes, there are bad people on there, but again, everyone still has the right to speak. If they call for violence, that can be removed. If they post child porn, or generate those types of images, that can be turned over to law enforcement. If you simply don't like their opinion, block them and move on, or exercise your own speech rights.
Overall, we should never accept governments trying to block entire platforms.
Saying X is somewhere you go for truth is utterly insane…insisting on facts and professional journalism is not “censorship “ , you just won’t get a pack of lies from some commuist/islamist/fascist that suits your world view. Again FACTS are immutable…there is no “for” or “against” counting the number of people at an event or pretending there was a huge conspiracy to fix your election. …just face facts: some things need regulating for the good of society…this is one of them.
We should never accept tools that break laws and expect to get away with it...we know Musk can switch off his dogshit chat bot so don't be so dramatic...this has nothing to do with censorship or blocking "truth" or stopping people using Twitter...
Saying X is somewhere you go for truth is utterly insane…
Many revolutions in repressive regimes that lack a free press have been documented in real time on X by citizen journalists, the ongoing Iranian one being merely the latest example.
I'm sorry that you've clearly been living under a rock for the last couple of decades and fail to grasp the obvious positive impact of platforms with minimal censorship, such as X.
You will find the BBC covering he Iranian rioting now…go and look.
Where do you think they're getting their material from, Einstein? Hint: Western journalists and camera crews tend to get short shrift from the Ayatollah.
It's also interesting you choose to mention the BBC who have been caught red handed manipulating footage to fit their leftist agenda and are the subject of a billion dollar law suit. Thanks for inadvertently revealing your bias!
People with mobile phones? Cameras?
Like I said…Twitter is a tool, not “the truth”.
You said “leftist agenda” so you’re clearly quite slow. Do you mean the panorama edits that the people involved have been fired for? Held to account?
Also let’s not forget Trump DID incite the riots…listen to the demented fool’s speech and come to your own conclusion…but you probably know this…you were probably there.
Bollox. It's "If you don't fix this appalling 'feature' of your platform, you don't get to splurge it in our jurisdiction".
Sounds reasonable to me. There is no up-side to this feature that justifies protection in the name of freedom of expression or any similarly bogus apologia. It is, pure and simply unacceptable. You have to question the agenda of those wielding this slimy defence of the indefensible.
Friend of Epstein Donald Trump unsurprisingly prefers to support a billionaire pedo guy.
In news coming in from the 16th Century...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_Mona_Lisa_(Hermitage)
Yes, it is a case of "OUT" rather than the usual "UP" situation that usually gets covered (or, uncovered, as is the case) here
https://search.theregister.com/?q=titsup&site=
TITSUP[OUT]
(working in progress...)
The Image That Sheds OUTer garments
Is that a pornographic image of a child?
(A) Yes
(B) No
If your answer was (A), then please stay where you are, and an officer of the Metropolitan Police will be along shortly to arrest you for distribution of child pornography. GAME OVER.
If your answer was (B), then congratulations on the ability to work a keyboard to the standard required to make a post on The Register's forums. However, the comment is irrelevant and off-topic. GAME OVER.
Firstly, consent only applies to living people, and I'm pretty sure the subject of the Mona Lisa is long dead (or we have a bigger, vampire-related problem).
Secondly, whilst we have to be careful around the "is it art" argument, and the exact line between art and pornography is fuzzy, and always moving, obvious art is obviously art, and obvious illegal child pornography is also obvious. Everyone can see what you are trying to do, and the claim you are projecting from it here, but in this case, obvious bollocks is obviously bollocks. That sort of reductionism is just a logical fallacy (reductio ad absurdum is the name of the argument you are trying to use, if you want its proper name, but you are basing it on flawed premises).
Seems trivial I guess, when:
- Your President is a convicted felon, abuser of women, liar and tax cheat.
- You invade other countries just to enrich your economy.
- Your society is awash with guns and mass shootings are common place.
- Your poor and working classes are devoid of affordable health care.
Personally, I think it’s just another symptom on a failing state.
Can you name any other platforms that allow this? If there are others, then yes, they too, should be investigated.
There are plenty of "guardrails" applied to LLMs and other "AI" tools that prevent all sorts of illegal uses, such as getting instructions on how to make bombs. They work with varying degrees of success.
However, here's the thing; in order to produce an "unclothed" image of a person, that "AI" model must have some source material that it has been "trained" on in order to do this. In other words, it has to "know" (and I use that word advisedly, because "AI" has no real knowledge) what the thing it is being asked to generate should look like.
At this point, the UK government should be asking Elon Musk how Grok can generate these images in the first place, what source material it has been fed with, and how they can be assured that, since its training data appears to contain material that is illegal in the UK, there is no risk that it will produce other material that is also illegal in the UK.
In other words, in extension to the adage GIGO (garbage in, garbage out), if there is illegal material coming out, there must have been illegal material going in, because "Grok" is not a conscious entity that can make this stuff up for itself.
If, for instance, it has been trained with images of naked ladies, so that its users can tittilate themsleves by asking it to generate an image of a naked lady, but it is illegal in this jurisdiction to make a pornographic image of a real person, then it stands to reason that the model trained with images of naked women must not be allowed to generate images of real people using that training data. Similarly, it should not be allowable to ask it to produce images of children based on that data. Personally, I think that if a person can use the internet and can't manage to find genuine images of undressed women, but instead have to resort to asking Elon Musk to do it for them, then maybe using any sort of computer is not for them. Perhaps a person finding themselves in this situation should also think about how objectifying women in this way might be the reason they are single and living in thier mother's basement amongst a pile of empty take-away containers and crusty socks.
Sadly I don't know. I have no experience of AI / LLM / whatever tools. It was just something I overheard on the radio and wondered about. It did feel odd that X/Grok would be so publicly singled out if they weren't the only ones at it but then you can never quite rely on press impartiality.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
