Archive for Grok

Barry Ward’s Letter about Grok/AI

Posted in Artificial Intelligence with tags , , , , on January 19, 2026 by telescoper

TD Barry Ward, who is also a barrister, has written a letter laying out very clearly why X/Grok could and should be prosecuted immediately under existing Irish law. I’m sharing it in full as it is the public interest. I’ll add my own opinion that the X premises should be raided as soon as possible before evidence can be destroyed.

The letter follows

–o–

To:
Detective Superintendent Pat Ryan
Garda National Cyber Crime Bureau

Dear Superintendent,

You will no doubt be aware of the social media company X and its Grok app, which utilises artificial intelligence to generate pictures and videos. I understand you are also aware that, among its capabilities is the generation, by artificial intelligence, of false images of real people either naked or in bikinis, etc. There has been a great deal of controversy recently about the use of this technology and its ability to target people without their knowledge or consent.

Whatever about the sharing of such images being contrary to the provisions of Coco’s Law (sections 2 and 3 of the Harassment, Harmful Communications and Related Offences Act 2020), the Grok app is also capable of generating child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or child pornography as defined by section 2(1) of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 (as substituted by section 9(b) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017).

In the circumstances, it seems there are reasonable grounds that the corporate entity X, as owner of Grok, or indeed the corporate entity Grok itself, is acting in contravention of a number of provisions of the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 (as amended). Inter alia, it is my contention that the following offences are being committed by X, Grok, and/or its subsidiaries:

1.⁠ ⁠Possession of child pornography contrary to section 6(1) in that the material generated by the Grok app must be stored on servers owned and/or operated by X and with the company’s knowledge, in this jurisdiction or in the European Union [subsections 6(3) and (4) would not apply in this case];

2.⁠ ⁠Production of child pornography contrary to section 5(1)(a) as substituted by section 12 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017, in that material is being generated by the Grok app, which constitutes child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or child pornography as defined by section 2(1), since it constitutes a visual representation that shows person who is depicted as being a child “being engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit activity” (per paragraph (a)(i) of the definition of child pornography in section 2(1) as amended by section 9(b) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017);

3.⁠ ⁠Distribution of chiid pornography contrary to section 5(1)(b) as substituted by section 12 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017, in that the said images that constitute child pornography are being distributed, transmitted, disseminated or published to the users of the Grok app by X or its subsidiaries;

4.⁠ ⁠Distribution of chiid pornography contrary to section 5(1)(c) as substituted by section 12 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017, in that the Child pornography is being sold to the users of the Grok app by X or its subsidiaries, now that the app has been very publically put behind a pay wall;

5.⁠ ⁠Knowing possession any child pornography for the purpose of distributing, transmitting, disseminating, publishing, exporting, selling or showing same, contrary to section 5(1)(g) as substituted by section 12 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017.

You will also be aware that, pursuant to section 9(1) of the 1998 Act, a body corporate is equally liable to be proceeded against and punished as if it were an individual.

Given the foregoing, as well as the public outcry against public decency, it is clear to me that X is flagrantly disregarding the laws of this country put in place by the Oireachtas to protect its citizens.

I am formally lodging this criminal complaint in the anticipation that you will investigate it fully and transmit a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions without delay; I would be grateful to hear from you in this regard.

Yours sincerely,

Barry Ward TD
Senior Counsel

82 Comments »

Leaving X

Posted in Biographical, Maynooth with tags , , , on January 18, 2026 by telescoper

I posted a couple of weeks ago about why you and your institution should leave X (the platform formerly known as Twitter). A few days ago the Royal Irish Academy used its BlueSky account to remind users that it issued the following statement last year – even before the launch of Grok’s child pornography engine:

Last year, we made the decision to step away from X.

The Royal Irish Academy is committed to creating, convening, and sharing knowledge for the public good and as an organisation we value Independence; Integrity; Curiosity; Openness and Rigour.

In our view, X no longer aligns with these values

This is a correct decision by the RIA, and although I’m no longer a Fellow of either the Royal Astronomical Society or the Institute of Physics, I am glad they came to the same conclusion. On the other hand, the Royal Society (of which the Royal Irish Academy is the Irish equivalent) continues to endorse X and its machineries of abuse; this is unsurprising because Elon Musk, who owns X and actively promotes the generation of images of child sexual abuse, is a member of that particular club.

All academic institutions should close their accounts on X. There is no acceptable justification to contribute to a network that promotes racism, transphobia, misogyny and the manufacture and distribution of child pornography. I would have thought this was obvious, but it seems not to be. My employer, Maynooth University, has not yet made any statement about the situation with X, and continues to post there.

As I wrote in a recent post

If you don’t leave a social media platform when you find out that it endorses and encourages abusive exploitation of children then you are supporting that behaviour and helping to promote it. There is no grey area here in this. If you don’t draw the line here, where will you draw it? Staying on X is morally indefensible. It is the Epstein Island of social media.

I should also point out that Grok is breaking the law in Ireland (which is where the EU operations of Twitter are based). Even that doesn’t seem to matter to those who continue to use the platform.

On Maynooth University’s Equality and Diversity page you will find this:

The Maynooth University Equality and Diversity Policy has been developed therefore, to realise these core values of equality, inclusiveness, social justice, dignity and respect.

I’d like to know how remaining on X aligns with these core values, and by what process Maynooth University came to a different conclusion on this than the Royal Irish Academy and other organizations mentioned above. One might well be tempted to infer that the above statement, like so many others produced by University Management, is mere bullshit. Perhaps “The Leadership” is waiting to see what other higher education institutions do before making a decision. But that wouldn’t be leadership at all, would it?

By way of a postscript to this let me share this petition which aims to discourage the sharing of content on X and replacement with Mastodon.

https://my.uplift.ie/petitions/take-x-icons-off-websites-and-emails-and-replace-with-mastodon-icons

I make no apology for encouraging the use of Mastodon. BlueSky is better than X but Mastodon is much better than BlueSky in terms of both its functionality and its governance. It doesn’t have as much reach as other platforms, though, which is why I want to promote it. If I had my way, Maynooth would set up its own Mastodon instance, as the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies has done, for example.

I removed the X icons from this blog some time ago. I can’t stop people sharing content from this blog on X, but I certainly don’t want to encourage it.

2 Comments »

Now you REALLY need to leave X (and so does your employer…)

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , on January 7, 2026 by telescoper

I have written many times (e.g. here) about the reasons I left the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. I quit Twitter in August 2023 and have no regrets for doing so. I have more followers and better engagement on Bluesky and Mastodon than I ever had on Twitter, and far less abuse. Unfortunately, my employer, along with most public institutions, still maintains an account there, a position I find ethically indefensible. Not to put to fine a point on it, I find it outrageous that Maynooth University persists in using Xitter. Touting for trade in a far-right propaganda channel is no way for a institution of higher education to behave. I’m very disappointed that I have only heard of a few organizations that have taken the principled decision to leave. You can read more about my views on this matter here.

My opinion on this has hardened considerably with the revelation that the AI bot known as Grok, which is integrated with X/Twitter, has developed a facility for creating nonconsensual and sexually explicit deepfake images, including pictures of children, for circulation on the platform. Grok/X not only condones this activity, which by the way is against the law, nor merely facilitates it, but actively encourages it.

If you don’t leave a social media platform when you find out that it endorses and encourages abusive exploitation of children then you are supporting that behaviour and helping to promote it. There is no grey area here in this. If you don’t draw the line here, when will you draw it? Staying on X is morally indefensible. It is the Epstein Island of social media.

Moreover, any institution or organisation that maintains a presence on X must be content to endorse the promotion of child abuse. I would like to hear an explanation from my employer why they think it’s appropriate for them to operate an official account on the Twitter/X that built a machine for generating images of child pornography. Perhaps readers could ask their employers the same question?

My preferred resolution of this matter would be to ban X entirely.

1 Comment »