Grok obscene AI content: X submits response, IT Ministry examining it, say sources
New Delhi (PTI): The IT Ministry is examining the response and submissions made by X following a government directive to crack down on misuse of artificial intelligence chatbot Grok by users for the creation of sexualised and obscene images of women and minors, sources said.
X had been given extended time until Wednesday, 5 PM to submit a detailed Action Taken Report to the ministry, after a stern warning was issued to the Elon Musk-led social media platform over indecent and sexually-explicit content being generated through misuse of AI-based services like 'Grok' and other tools.
Sources told PTI that X has submitted their response, and it is under examination.
The details of X's submission were, however, not immediately known.
On Sunday, X's 'Safety' handle said it takes action against illegal content on its platform, including Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), by removing it, permanently suspending accounts, and working with local governments and law enforcement as necessary.
"Anyone using or prompting Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content," X had said, reiterating the stance taken by Musk on illegal content.
ALSO READ: Israeli PM Netanyahu calls PM Modi; briefs on Gaza Peace Plan status
On January 2, the IT Ministry pulled up X and directed it to immediately remove all vulgar, obscene and unlawful content, especially generated by Grok (X's built-in artificial intelligence interface) or face action under the law.
In the directive on Friday, the ministry asked the US-based social media firm to submit a detailed action taken report (ATR) within 72 hours, spelling out specific technical and organisational measures adopted or proposed in relation to the Grok application; the role and oversight exercised by the Chief Compliance Officer; actions taken against offending content, users and accounts; as well as mechanisms to ensure compliance with the mandatory reporting requirement under Indian laws.
The IT Ministry, in the ultimatum issued, noted that Grok AI, developed by X and integrated on the platform, is being misused by users to create fake accounts to host, generate, publish or share obscene images or videos of women in a derogatory or vulgar manner.
"Importantly, this is not limited to creation of fake accounts but also targets women who host or publish their images or videos, through prompts, image manipulation and synthetic outputs," the ministry said, asserting that such conduct reflects a serious failure of platform-level safeguards and enforcement mechanisms, and amounts to gross misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in violation of stipulated laws.
The government made it clear to X that compliance with the IT Act and rules is not optional, and that the statutory exemptions under section 79 of the IT Act (which deals with safe harbour and immunity from liability for online intermediaries) are conditional upon strict observance of due diligence obligations.
"Accordingly, you are advised to strictly desist from the hosting, displaying, uploading, publication, transmission, storage, sharing of any content on your platform that is obscene, pornographic, vulgar, indecent, sexually explicit, paedophilic, or otherwise prohibited under any law...," the ministry said.
The government warned X in clear terms that any failure to observe due diligence obligations shall result in the loss of the exemption from liability under section 79 of the IT Act, and that the platform will also be liable for consequential action under other laws, including the IT Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
It asked X to enforce user terms of service and AI usage restrictions, including ensuring strong deterrent measures such as suspension, termination and other enforcement actions against violating users and accounts.
X has also been asked to remove or disable access "without delay" to all content already generated or disseminated in violation of applicable laws, in strict compliance with the timelines prescribed under the IT Rules, 2021, without, as such, vitiating the evidence.
Besides India, the platform has drawn flak in the UK and Malaysia too. Ofcom, the UK's independent communications regulator, in a recent social media post, said: "We are aware of serious concerns raised about a feature on Grok on X that produces undressed images of people and sexualised images of children".
"We have made urgent contact with X and xAI to understand what steps they have taken to comply with their legal duties to protect users in the UK. Based on their response, we will undertake a swift assessment to determine whether there are potential compliance issues that warrant investigation," Ofcom said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
'Sharjeel Imam not a disciple of Umar Khalid,' his counsel tells court
New Delhi (PTI): The counsel for the jailed activist Sharjeel Imam told a court here on Thursday that Umar Khalid never mentored his client before the 2020 Delhi riots, and the prosecution's allegation that Imam was a disciple of Khalid was "absurd."
The submissions were made before Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai, who was hearing arguments on the charge against Imam, an accused in the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots conspiracy case.
Counsels for Imam, Ahmad Ibrahim, and Talib Mustafa submitted before the court that, despite their client and Khalid being the students of the same varsity, Jawaharlal Nehru University, there was no direct or indirect communication between them.
"The allegations find no support from the materials relied upon by the prosecution. Rather, the applicant (Imam) never spoke to Umar Khalid. It is highly improbable and rather unbelievable that the applicant, who, as per the prosecution, was mentored by Umar Khalid, never had any calls or messages with him," Imam's counsel Mustafa said in the court.
He said both were added to two groups, the Muslim Students of JNU (MSJ) and the CAB TEAM, just because they were students of the same university.
Referring to the prosecution's allegation that Imam hatched a criminal conspiracy with the other accused persons to cause a 'chakka jam,' which was later escalated into violent riots, his counsel said that there was no evidence that showed that at any point in time Imam had any intention to incite violence.
"In none of the materials relied upon by the prosecution, including speeches. pamphlets, chats and Facebook posts of Imam, there is nothing which could even remotely suggest that the applicant at any point of time had any intention to incite violence," he said.
He also contended that the prosecution tried to create a narrative of religious extremism around Imam by conflating purported discussions of issues affecting a particular religious community.
"Notably, mere academic criticism of events perceived by the applicant to be against a community doesn't make one communal, much less an extremist," he said.
According to the prosecution, Imam, along with other MSJ members, participated in a protest called by Jamia Milia Islamia students, where allegedly pamphlets were distributed to incite communal feelings among the Muslim community and induce them to protest against the CAA.
"Nothing communal in the alleged pamphlet. Merely talks about the discriminatory nature of CAA and its possible consequence if implemented coupled with NRC (National Register of Citizens)," his counsel said, concluding his arguments.
The case pertains to the February 2020 riots in northeast Delhi that left 53 people dead and more than 700 injured.
The violence erupted during widespread protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC).
The Delhi Police has alleged that Imam was involved in deliberate mobilisation, radicalisation and preparation of ground conditions through organised chakka jams, blockage of arterial roads, and disruption of essential services.
He allegedly created and administered the WhatsApp group, Muslim Students of JNU, which functioned as a coordinating mechanism for mobilisation, identification of protest sites.
Police accused Imam of attending and participating in conspiratorial meetings in Jangpura, where the strategy of chakka jam and escalation of protests was discussed.
Imam's role was allegedly not geographically confined to Delhi and acted as a mobiliser and ideologue, as the appellant travelled to Aligarh and other locations, police said.
Police also accused Imam of playing a decisive role in the creation and sustenance of the Shaheen Bagh protest site, which evolved into a prolonged round-the-clock blockade of a major arterial road.
They alleged that the Imam's role was foundational and preparatory, and that liability for conspiracy does not require physical presence at the scene of violence once the plan has been set in motion.
