Copy article

Musk promised a "Truth" AI, instead, he built a machine that creates dangerous lies about women and children.

ended 06. January 2026

The scandal surrounding Grok is not just a technical glitch. It is a broken promise. Elon Musk sold Grok as the AI for "Truth", an alternative to other AI models he claimed were too "woke" or censored. But there is a massive irony here: by removing the safety brakes, he hasn't built a truth machine. He has built a tool that is now famous for manufacturing lies, specifically, fake, sexualised photos of women and children.

We need to be clear about what "this" actually means. It isn’t just about "nudes." Users are taking normal photos of children and using Grok to redress them in bikinis or sexualised outfits. This is not "free speech." It is the manufacturing of abuse. When an AI takes a photo of a real person and creates a fake, humiliating version of them without their permission, it is distorting reality, not seeking truth.

Musk’s recent warning that users will be punished for this is a deflection. It tries to blame the driver for a crash caused by a car with no brakes. In any other industry, whether it’s making cars or toys, if you sold a product that you knew could hurt children this easily, you would face recalls and lawsuits. Yet, xAI seems to think they can hand out dangerous tools and wash their hands of the damage.

When the BBC asked them about these failures, xAI’s only response was an auto-email saying "legacy media lies." That isn't how a serious company behaves. That is how a troll behaves. We cannot allow Tech Giants to profit from these tools while leaving victims to clean up the mess.

We’d like your views:

  • How can Grok claim to be a "Truth" AI when its most famous feature is creating fake, damaging photos?
  • If a tool can easily be used to sexualise children, shouldn't the company that built it be held responsible, not just the user?
  • If a car manufacturer removed the brakes to make a car "freer," we would blame the factory for the crash. Why is AI different?
  • Have we gone too far by calling basic safety rules "woke"? Blocking illegal images of minors isn't politics; it's basic decency.
  • When a company responds to serious questions about abuse with a meme about "lying media," does that prove they are unfit to run a global platform?
  • Who pays for the damage to the victims? The user with 50 followers, or the billionaire who built the machine?

4 responses from the Newspage community

Copy all

Star Quote
Copy

Rohit Parmar-Mistry
Founder at Pattrn Data
Elon Musk blaming users for Grok’s 'nudification' scandal is a classic distraction. It’s the Jurassic Park principle: just because you can build something, doesn't mean you should, especially if you haven't built the fences.

In my decade of delivering corporate technology, the golden rule is simple: you test for failure before you launch. John Hammond didn't get to blame the tourists when the dinosaurs escaped, and Musk shouldn't get to blame the users for a system he deliberately built without brakes.

The irony is blinding. Musk marketed Grok as the 'Truth' AI to counter 'woke' rivals. Yet, by removing basic safety filters, he built the world’s most efficient engine for manufacturing lies. A deepfake of a child in a bikini is the ultimate lie, a fabrication designed to humiliate.

When a company responds to these serious failures with memes, they prove they aren't serious. It’s time we held the digital factory accountable, not just the user.
Copy

Editor
Mitali Deypurkaystha
AI Governance Strategist & CMO at AISensa
When you strip safety from AI in the name of “truth” or “free speech,” you don’t reveal reality. You distort it. That’s not truth-seeking. It’s power without responsibility. George Orwell warned us about this in 1984. The Ministry of Truth didn’t exist to tell the truth. It existed to control the narrative while claiming moral authority. That inversion is exactly what we’re seeing now. Yes, legacy media lies. But tech giants pointing at “media lies” while building systems that manufacture abuse and misinformation at scale are not the antidote. They are a more dangerous version of the same problem.
Copy

Colette Mason
AI Ethics Consultant at Clever Clogs AI
2026 must be the year we finally have the full and frank discussion about what AI means to individuals, as people, consumers, and citizens. Grok's laissez-faire attitude to safety has crossed a line. People don't want nannying from AI platforms, but they absolutely don't want free access for bad actors to create harmful content at scale. There's a world of difference between removing corporate overcaution and removing basic safeguards against abuse.

When their "truth" AI becomes famous for manufacturing sexualised images of kids, they haven't championed free speech, they've built infrastructure for harm. The need for transparency and a strong duty of care from tech companies has never been more urgent.

Big tech must accept responsibility for the tools they build and the damage caused. Governments must be bolder in their challenges. Right now, their efforts are woeful. These organisations are pulling the rug from under technology that could genuinely transform lives for the better.
Copy

Ben Foster
CEO at The SEO Works
Serious businesses build trust through transparency and honesty. Responding to genuine concerns about abuse with an auto-email shows a lack of care. If a company wants to be treated as a leader in the industry, it needs to act with maturity and face its failures head on.

Remember that leadership is a responsibility, not a rank. There is a massive gap between promising a 'Truth' AI and delivering a tool that can generate lies. It shows a lack of integrity. Other AI tools have safeguards in place, so it isn't unreasonable to expect this in Grok.