UK to properly probe xAI to test if its revolting robo-smut generator broke the law The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has launched a probe into Elon Musk’s xAI, after its Grok chatbot produced sexual images of real people, without their consent. ICO sent xAI a “please explain” note in early January. The regulator hasn’t yet said how, or if, Elon Musk’s AI outfit responded. But on Tuesday the …
Utter boolarks.
It may be some of those things, in some measure, although I've never seen any of the latter on there.
It's also one of the only platforms that doesn't "toe the line" and holds the UK government to account for some of the crap they are trying to get away with. An example being grooming gangs which was massively underreported (both in the press, and to the Police) for years. Also, the suicidal Net Zero policies that only Europe, Canada and South Korea are still following (although China and India make noises).
Also, why only investigate X for this when the other AI platforms are equally bad or worse at putting women into bikinis?
If you are a state sponsored NPC then the thumbs down button is below.
Not that I agree with all the shite on X, there is definitely a LOT of misinformation. It's pretty obvious. But also important stuff too. I just feel like Starmer would just LOVE to shut the whole thing down, as it's currently doing the job that the press just can't seem to manage. He gets mocked relentlessly. It's also funny.
Even ignoring the "Well, he may be a serial killer, but he likes cats" apologetic vibe your post is giving off, it's hard to tell if you're trolling, or if you are really so caught up in your alt-right (well, these days, that could just be considered "right") bubble you actually believe that bullshit.
Twitter toes Musks line. On the days he and Trump aren't having a playground spat, that would also be the Trump line.
Whilst Trumps Gestapo ignore court orders, and tramples on the constitution, whilst criticising Trump, ICE, or Israels genocide can get you deported, Musk calls everyone else a fascist for trying to hold him to account.
The fact that Musk and Trump are in the Epstein files, yet you complain about the UK not investigating unreported crimes is the height of cultish behaviour.
I don't think anyone here wants grooming rape gangs to go unpunished, whatever the colour of their skin (although you don't say it, you obviously mean just those with a darker complexion), though you're half right - the right wing media is completely silent when the perpetrators are white and English.
By the way, anonymous state cucking NPC (who does it for free), there's a hell of a lot of projection going on there!
I'd love to see twitter shut-down for all the propaganda, bullshit, and enticement to violence and terrorism, that it's lies provide to the hard-of-thinking alt-right numptys, probably just as strongly as those on the right want to shut down (or buy off) any media company that exposes your lies.
I'm not even going to mention your climate denial bullshit - that trope has sailed long ago.
Anyway, well done for standing up for your beliefs...... anonymously!
Of course they did FFS … esp. when by comparison the Met Police hounded one of their own Superintendents out of a job and into the clutches of the CPS when she received, but did not even open some CSAM images.
Any correlation to her being a Black Woman is entirely coincidental.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/19/police-chief-convicted-for-having-child-sex-abuse-video-on-phone-robyn-williams
"Where we find obligations have not been met, we will take action to protect the public."
That's shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Surely that statement should instead be "Where we find obligations have not been met, we will prosecute them to the full extent of the law."?
You misunderstand the role of regulators.
Their primary job is to bring non-compliant businesses into compliance. They're not there to be prosecutors. Unlike the big US tax dodgers they don't have armies of high end lawyers just a handful of over-worked and underpaid lawyers. They do have powers to bring prosecutions and in some cases to levy civil monetary penalties (that can still be challenged through the courts), but as noted their legal resources are very limited. Even with a successful prosecution the fines that get levied are trivial because the British legal system doesn't have the intentionally punitive fines system that the US system has. And the far higher fines of the US system don't seem to get better results anyway.
The important point here is that everything can be challenged in the courts. So starting from the first whiff or wrongdoing, the regulator has to follow its own published investigation and enforcement policies to the letter and keep the proof; Evidence must be gathered to prosecutorial standards; the regulator's lawyers have to identify exactly what aspect of law has been breached, when and by whom (specifically relevant legal entities); the company has to be asked for its side of the story, interactions with the company are likely to take place under PACE cautions - at which point the company calls in its own lawyers and time freezes. When challenged, US companies use every potential trick in the book to evade being held to account - I know this for a fact, in relation to a major US tech company that tried to bully the regulator I work for into agreeing that said company could avoid obligations that everybody else complied with. A decision has to be made as to what is the way forward - a pinky promise by the company not to do it again, a legally binding compliance undertaking, a monetary penalty by the regulator, a prosecution by the regulator, or calling in the CPS and possibly the police. Because regulators (even those pretending to be arms length bodies) are accountable to ministers and parliament, it's unheard of for them to start a high profile prosecution without the relevant minister being briefed and assenting. All of this is SLOOOWWWWW.
If you wanted pre-emptive regulators deciding what should and shouldn't happen without due process, then that's possible, but I don't think you'd be quite so keen on that sort of regulatory world.
Frustratingly, that Reuters article, although *published* yesterday, does not state that they still saw the sexualised images yesterday; they state that the latest tests were run
> The Reuters reporters - six men and three women in the U.S. and the UK - submitted fully clothed photos of themselves and one another to Grok between January 14 - 16 and between January 27 - 28
Also, that
> Five days after first seeking comment, Reuters ran a second batch of 43 prompts. Grok generated sexualized images in 29 cases
But there is no clear statement of when "first seeking comment" occured so the five days can be added.
However, the article does describe the lengths that the reporters went to in order to try and trigger whatever "safeguards" were *ever* supposedly in place, demonstrating that those "safeguards" claims are complete twaddle: put in "context" (the victim's obvious distress) plus a simple command (make an image...) and the program follows the command, sort of like it was - a computer program. Albeit an inefficient one.
“...a tyrant and a traitor”
Hmm, it would seem as if Musk is firing from the lip again. How can anyone be both a tyrant and a traitor at the same time?
If someone is a tyrant, then they are, by definition in control of the the state. L'etat, c'est moi" as Louis XIV put it.
How then can a tyrant be a traitor? They would in effect be betraying themselves.
Maybe it was all the spittle coating the screen that stopped Musk reading what he had just written.
If he is so dumb why is he so rich?
There are many things one can betray, including yourself. A leader might not betray their own interests, but nevertheless betray (e.g.) the people of their country. So when you hear a bare "$X is a traitor", the thing to determine is what they are being said (or implied) to betray, and whether you think that an important source of obligation.
Perhaps Snowdon is a useful case to consider: he could be described as betraying his employer by becoming a whistleblower; but you might well say that he did not betray the American people, to whom he did a service by exposing wrongdoing.
> So when you hear a bare "$X is a traitor", the thing to determine is what they are being said (or implied) to betray, and whether you think that an important source of obligation.
So when you hear a bare "$X is a traitor", the thing to do is take a wild guess at what was meant to be being betrayed and really try hard to come up with an obligation to that subject.
OR
So when you hear a bare "$X is a traitor", castigate the idiot speaking for not being able to put together a meaningful statement, particularly when broadcasting it to world and his dog.
I'll take number 2 please Chris, final answer.
With respect to the particular Xit being squeezed here, you really have to dig hard to find anything that a tyrant has an obligation to; being tyrannical is pretty much the entirety of the job description.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
