- Trending
- Comments
- Latest
The UK’s proposed ban on AI-generated intimate images may not apply to Elon Musk’s Grok chatbot, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall has confirmed, exposing significant gaps in the government’s approach to regulating general-purpose AI systems.
The admission comes after ministers fast-tracked legislation following public outcry over Grok-generated sexualized content depicting real people without consent, prompting warnings from legal experts and former lawmakers that the UK’s regulatory framework is failing to keep pace with rapidly evolving AI technologies.
Harriet Harman, former deputy leader of the Labour Party, said the government’s approach to Uk ai regulation reflects a reactive pattern rather than a coherent long-term strategy.
“It looks like we are behind the curve, because we are. And it looks like we’re running to catch up, because we are. And it looks like we’ve got a scattergun approach, because we have,” — Harriet Harman, former UK deputy Labour leader.
Harman argued that lawmakers are adopting what she described as a “whack-a-mole” approach to regulating large technology platforms, responding to individual scandals rather than addressing systemic risks.
According to Harman, the lack of clarity around what constitutes “intimate” imagery under the proposed rules exposes a key weakness in the UK’s Uk ai regulation strategy.
Backbench MPs and advocacy groups have pointed to examples where AI-generated images depict women or children in bikinis or wet T-shirts without consent, content that may fall outside existing definitions of nudity.
Critics say such gaps risk undermining the effectiveness of the new ban announced by ministers and outlined in government proposals published on GOV.UK.
Questions over enforcement deepened after Technology Secretary Liz Kendall acknowledged that the proposed nudification offense may not apply to Grok.
In correspondence with Labour MP Chi Onwurah, Kendall said officials had identified that not all AI chatbots fall within the scope of the legislation and that further work was underway to address the gap.
Legal experts say this limitation highlights a structural challenge for Uk ai regulation.
Clare McGlynn, a professor of law at Durham University and a leading authority on image-based abuse, warned that the nudification ban alone would not stop the creation of sexualized images through general-purpose AI models.
“The nudification offense is designed to apply to specific applications built for that purpose, and it will not apply to systems like Grok,” — Clare McGlynn, Professor of Law, Durham University.
Grok, developed by xAI, is classified as a general-purpose AI capable of generating text, images, and code, making it harder to regulate under narrowly drafted laws.
Analysts say this distinction underscores the difficulty of designing Uk ai regulation that is both technologically neutral and future-proof.
Following mounting criticism, X said it would restrict the generation of images of real people in skimpy clothing, such as bikinis or underwear, in jurisdictions where such content is illegal.
The company announced the change in a statement shared via X’s official safety communications, though it did not clarify whether the same safeguards would apply to the standalone Grok app or website.
The controversy comes amid broader concerns about violence against women and girls (VAWG) facilitated by digital technologies.
Advocacy groups estimate that roughly one in 10 recorded VAWG offenses already contains a digital component, a figure experts believe significantly understates the true scale of abuse.
Campaigners argue that AI systems act as a “harm accelerant,” enabling abusive material to be generated and distributed at unprecedented speed and scale.
These risks, they say, extend well beyond image generation and into areas such as conversational manipulation, harassment, and misinformation.
Michael Birtwistle, associate director at the Ada Lovelace Institute, said further flashpoints are likely as AI tools become more embedded in daily life.
“Future controversies could include children being targeted with sexual interactions from chatbots, or AI assistants providing harmful health or financial advice,” — Michael Birtwistle, Associate Director, Ada Lovelace Institute.
The Ada Lovelace Institute has repeatedly warned that fragmented oversight could weaken public trust and leave users exposed, calling for clearer accountability mechanisms within Uk ai regulation.
As ministers defend their rapid response to the Grok backlash, critics argue that Uk ai regulation must move beyond piecemeal fixes and adopt a comprehensive framework that reflects how general-purpose AI is actually used.
With AI systems evolving faster than legislation, experts warn that reactive bans risk becoming obsolete almost as soon as they are enacted.
For policymakers, the Grok controversy has become a test case for whether the UK can strike a balance between innovation and protection.
Without clearer definitions, wider scope, and stronger enforcement tools, analysts say Uk ai regulation may continue to lag behind the technology it seeks to control.
